Treaties for which NZ is DepositaryTrade law and free trade agreementsTreaty making processEngagement with MaoriInternational Treaties ListNational Interest AnalysesRecent Treaty ActionsTreaty CriteriaTreaty registerLaw of the Sea and FisheriesInternational Humanitarian LawInternational Courts and TribunalsPrivate International LawDiplomatic Privileges and ImmunitiesSecurity Council SanctionsSpeeches and Events
Start writing the country or territory name in the box. Typing more letters narrows the search. Click "go" or hit "Enter" to go to the information paper on the country or territory.
(We don't have information papers on all countries and territories.)
Although we have tried to use plain English content on the site, you may come across specialist terms and acronyms. Find out what they mean in our glossary of terms.
If you come across a term that isn't included in the Glossary please send us an email.
There is no specific proposed date.
Internationally, there have been signs that countries wish to move toward the harmonisation of road vehicle standards in order to improve road safety (through achieving a uniform world best practice in vehicle standards) and to remove non-tariff barriers to trade.
One region that is well-advanced in harmonising vehicle standards for the purposes of facilitating intra-regional trade is Europe. The 1958 Agreement[1] has played a key role in this process and more than 100 vehicle standards have been produced as United Nations European Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) regulations.
Under the UN-ECE regime, non-tariff barriers attributable to incompatible vehicle standards may be removed quickly, through mutual recognition of UN-ECE standards as an alternative to each country’s domestic vehicle standards. This is quicker than the lengthy and complex process of harmonising the different domestic standards into one set of standards. It has proved a very effective mechanism for facilitating trade in automotive product within Europe and its success has led to countries outside Europe acceding to the 1958 Agreement, including Japan and Australia.
UN-ECE regulations are developed by Working Party 29 (WP29). WP29 meets in Geneva and comprises experts from the 1958 Agreement’s member countries. Decisions made by two-thirds majority voting.
The 1998 Agreement is also administered by WP29 and was adopted to address the United States’ concerns about the UN-ECE type-certification system and a perceived loss of sovereignty. The 1998 Agreement is silent on certification (so leaving the United States free to follow its ‘self-certification’ approach) and decisions on any Global Technical Regulations (GTRs) developed in WP29 are taken on the basis of unanimous, rather than majority, voting (so addressing the United States’ concerns about sovereignty).
The 1998 Agreement entered into force in August 2000. Its members include the United States, the European Union and Japan, while Australia has indicated that it intends to accede in the near future. Work has now commenced on developing GTRs.
In practice, the 1958 and 1998 Agreements should be seen as a twin-track approach. The 1958 Agreement provides a ‘fast-track’ for those countries interested in making early progress in removing barriers to trade attributable to incompatible vehicle standards, as there are already regulations in place that may be adopted immediately on a mutual recognition basis[2]. Article 12(1) of the 1998 Agreement provides that it would operate in parallel with the 1958 Agreement without affecting the autonomy of either Agreement. In practice, the 1998 Agreement should provide a longer-term solution of a single set of harmonised global standards, arrived at through unanimous voting.
Once this harmonisation process is complete, the two standards regimes would eventually merge. The role of the 1958 Agreement would then be to provide a certification mechanism for ensuring compliance with the global standards.
Advantages
As UN-ECE standards are adopted worldwide, New Zealand manufacturers of automotive components should find it easier to export, as they would be able to make products to a single set of global road vehicle standards. Internationally, consumers should benefit in the longer term from cost reductions passed on by manufacturers, as a result of the savings the latter could make from designing and building vehicles to a single set of global standards. The degree of any cost savings for consumers would depend on the degree of competitiveness of each country’s vehicle market.
New Zealand would be able to participate in the development of future road vehicle standards through the WP29 process (so having a ‘say’ in the process), although resource constraints would limit the extent of New Zealand participation.
Accession would also be consistent with our obligations within both the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement and the APEC Transportation Working Group. Both advocate harmonisation of road vehicle standards with UN-ECE.
The long-term aim of a single harmonised regime, administered by WP29, would simplify the standards system in New Zealand and make it easier to enforce and reduce compliance costs. In particular, we would no longer need consistency between the four sets of standards New Zealand currently recognises before introducing any specific improvements to vehicle safety systems here. This would be dependent on how quickly the countries from which New Zealand sources its vehicles adopted UN-ECE standards. Japan, for example, has indicated informally that it will phase in such standards over the next 5-10 years.
Disadvantages
While formally adopting standards developed under the 1958 and 1998 Agreements would be in line with New Zealand’s current vehicle standards policy, doing so would also constrain any attempts by future governments to impose different standards requirements in New Zealand to those in force elsewhere in the world. For example, if New Zealand adopted the UN-ECE standard for brake systems we would only be able to put in place a different domestic standard for brakes if we also continued to accept products certified to the UN-ECE standard. However, with virtually all of New Zealand’s vehicles now sourced from overseas, it is difficult to see the imposition of different standards as an attractive option due to the high costs that would be passed on to consumers.
Should New Zealand accede to either of the agreements, any decisions to formally adopt new individual regulations would be separately considered on a case-by-case basis by the Minister of Transport through the making of Land Transport Rules.
There is no requirement for member countries to adopt individual UN-ECE Regulations, but once a country has done so it is obliged to accept products certified in accordance with type-approvals issued by any member country without imposing other technical requirements. This would not be an onerous obligation for New Zealand, as we have already incorporated the provisions of around 30 of the UN-ECE regulations into domestic law.
The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) would probably represent New Zealand at WP29 meetings. In participating in WP29, the LTSA would not be committing the Government to any specific obligations – any standards developed at WP29 would be considered for adoption in New Zealand on a case-by-case basis through amendments to the relevant Land Transport Rules.
Since 1991 New Zealand has followed a “smorgasbord” road vehicle standards policy, accepting vehicles and components made to the standards of Australia, Europe (UN-ECE), Japan and the United States. The smorgasbord policy has enabled the New Zealand consumer to have access to relatively safe vehicles at reasonable cost. Accession to either of the two agreements should not compromise the smorgasbord policy since it is likely that New Zealand will continue to recognise Australian, Japanese, and United States standards in addition to UN-ECE for as long as these separate regimes continue to exist. In the longer term it is likely that a single set of global vehicle standards will eventually prevail, which, as discussed in the ‘advantages’ section above, should lead to lower costs.
UN-ECE road vehicle standards are widely regarded as best practice in terms of safety and environmental protection. Global harmonisation of road vehicle standards to UN-ECE should assist in reducing emissions from motor vehicles as well as road crashes, particularly in developing countries that might otherwise adopt their own, sub-optimal, vehicle standards. It would not, of course, directly address the more fundamental problem of the growing use of motor vehicles worldwide.
There are unlikely to be any other social or cultural effects from acceding to the two agreements
Overall, road vehicle standards harmonisation should reduce costs to the industry and consumers, as discussed in the ‘advantages’ section above.
Accession to the 1958 Agreement confers the right to certify components and systems to any adopted UN-ECE regulations. However, there would be no obligation on New Zealand to engage in certification activities and certification would continue to be available through using established overseas agencies. Consultation has established that this would be acceptable to New Zealand manufacturers. This would avoid the potential administrative cost of providing UN-ECE certification in New Zealand.
Costs related to preparation for and attendance at WP29 meetings would be met from within the LTSA’s existing resources. It is likely that, due to resource constraints, the LTSA would not attend more than one such meeting per annum.
None anticipated.
There would be no need for any legislative or regulatory amendments to be made to enable New Zealand to accede to either of the two agreements
While New Zealand already recognises many of the UN-ECE regulations as part of its smorgasbord approach, formal adoption of further UN-ECE regulations would require amendments to the relevant Land Transport Rules made under the Land Transport Act 1998, on a case-by-case basis.
In the development of this proposal, the LTSA consulted its Vehicle Standards Advisory Committee as well as representatives of the automotive parts industry. Submissions were received from the Motor Trade Association, Bus and Coach Association, Motor Industry Association, Road Transport Forum, Insurance Council, Hella New Zealand, and Trimtech New Zealand. There were no objections to New Zealand’s proposed accession to the two agreements.
The following departments have also been consulted and concur with the recommendations of this paper: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Economic Development, The Treasury, and the Land Transport Safety Authority. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has also been consulted.
A Contracting Party may withdraw from or denounce either agreement by notifying the Secretary-General of the United Nations in writing. In the case of both agreements, withdrawal or denunciation would take effect 12 months after the date of receipt by the Secretary-General of such notification.
[1] ‘Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be used on Wheeled Vehicles and Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these Prescriptions’, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958 and most recently revised on 16 October 1995.
[2] ‘Agreement Concerning the Establishment of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or used on Wheeled Vehicles’, done at Geneva on 25 June 1998.
