The TAIEX workshop in Ankara last week opened with a very clear purpose: to support Türkiye’s preparation for the EU’s new Cyber Resilience Act and to shape a practical roadmap for harmonising national systems with European expectations. From the outset, it was evident that this gathering brought together not only technical expertise, but also a collective interest in strengthening cooperation and ensuring a smooth transition for all institutions involved.

TAIEX — the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument — is an EU mechanism designed to help partner countries align their administrative and legislative practices with the EU acquis. It facilitates short-term expert missions, study visits, and workshops, creating direct channels for knowledge exchange between EU Member States and beneficiary institutions. In essence, TAIEX provides practical, targeted support for countries navigating complex regulatory transitions — exactly the context of this workshop.

Throughout both days of the event, participants examined the different dimensions of CRA alignment: legislative foundations, responsibilities for economic operators, conformity assessment expectations, reporting obligations, and the roles of national authorities and ENISA. Contributions from experts representing Spain, Italy, Romania, and Türkiye helped ensure that the discussions were anchored in both European practice and local realities. This made it possible to approach CRA alignment not only as a regulatory requirement, but also as a strategic process connected to market access, competitiveness, and long-term industrial cooperation.

My role in the workshop centred on this strategic dimension. While technical specialists addressed the detailed provisions of the CRA, my contribution focused on how regulatory alignment can enhance predictability for exporters, strengthen trust in supply chains, and position Türkiye as a reliable partner for digital products entering the European market.

On the first day, I spoke about cybersecurity as an emerging market standard — how security posture is increasingly factored into procurement decisions, investment evaluations, and long-term industrial partnerships. I sought to highlight that cybersecurity is not simply an additional compliance layer, but an element of competitiveness that can influence how countries are perceived in cross-border value chains.

The second day shifted toward the operational side of alignment, including digital product trade lanes and the harmonization of CRA, EMC, and LVD conformity processes. In this context, I emphasized the practical value of coordination — how aligning testing, documentation, and assessment procedures can reduce duplication, shorten timelines, and support exporters in navigating the European market more efficiently. The intention was to underline that well-structured implementation can create benefits not only for regulatory authorities, but also for industry.

The workshop offered a useful setting for institutions to exchange views. The discussions were clear and practical, and there was a general agreement on the need for coordination as CRA implementation progresses. Participants approached the technical points with a good balance of detail and broader perspective.

By the end of the second day, there was a clear recognition that the workshop had helped consolidate a common basis for future work. The conversations laid the groundwork for sustained engagement and practical progress in the coming months.

If anything became clear over these two days, it is that cybersecurity has firmly become a cornerstone of modern trade — and contributing to this dialogue was both timely and deeply rewarding.