COMMITTEE ONTECHNICAL BARRIERS TOTRADE
Draft Minutes oftheMeeting held 20June 1997
Attached hereto please findthedraft minutes ofthemeeting heldon20June 1997. Delegations
areinvited tosubmit comments, ifany, totheSecretariat (Mrs. Vivien Liu, tel.7395455,and
Mrs. Barbara D'Andrea, tel.7395478)by29August 1997.
97-3170RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/TBT/W/52
28July 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3170)
Committee onTechnical Barriers toTrade
DRAFT MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON20JUNE 1997
Chairman: Mr.T.H.M.Tong (Hong Kong)
1. TheCommittee onTechnical Barriers toTrade held itsninth meeting on20June 1997.
2. Thefollowing agenda, contained inWTO/AIR/610 wasadopted:
Page
A. Request forObserver Status intheCommittee bytheAfrican, Caribbean
andPacific Group ofStates (ACP); theEuropean Free Trade Association
(EFTA); andTheOffice International delaVigne etduVin(OIV) 2
B. Technical Working Group oftheCommittee onISO/IEC Guides relating to
Articles 5and6oftheAgreement -Report onSecond Meeting 2
C. Preparation fortheFirst Triennial Review oftheOperation and
Implementation oftheTBT Agreement under Article 15.4 5
D. Statements onImplementation andAdministration oftheAgreement 26
E. Other Business 29G/TBT/W/52
Page 2
A. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS INTHE COMMITTEE BY THE AFRICAN,
CARIBBEAN AND PACIFIC GROUP OFSTATES (ACP); THE EUROPEAN FREE TRADE
ASSOCIATION (EFTA); AND THE OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DELAVIGNE ETDU
VIN (OIV)
3. The Chairman drew attention todocument (G/TBT/W/35) listing the international
intergovernmental organizations requesting observer status intheCommittee, including theAfrican,
Caribbean andPacific Group ofStates (ACP), theEuropean Free Trade Association (EFTA) andthe
Office international delavigne etduvin(OIV) whose requests forobserver status were pending. He
noted thattherequests ofthose organizations would betreated onacase-by-case basis andconsidered
againsttheGeneralCouncilGuidelinescontainedinAnnex3ofdocumentWT/L/161,"takingintoaccount
such factors asthenature ofwork oftheorganization concerned, thenature ofitsmembership, the
number ofWTO Members intheorganization, reciprocity with respect toaccess toproceedings,
documents andother aspects ofobservership ...". Inrelation tothat, heinformed theCommittee of
arequest forobserver status bytheLatin American Integration Association (ALADI) (G/TBT/W/46).
4. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities supported therequest forobserver status by
ACP, EFTA andOIV. Shethought thattheparticipation ofACP intheCommittee 'swork asanobserver,
might helpinproviding information andtechnical assistance toitsMembers. Shenoted thattheactivities
ofOIV inthefield ofwine production practices andmethods waswithin thescope oftheAgreement.
5. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recognized theGeneral Council Guidelines concerning
observer status, butnoted thatthere hadbeen on-going discussions under theCouncil forTrade inGoods
foradditional guidance which might beneeded tobetter evaluate therequests. Atthispoint, her
delegation didnotwish totake apermanent decision onadditional observers. However, shewould
beprepared tojointheconsensus togrant observer status toACP andEFTA onanadhoc, meeting
bymeeting basis.
6. Therepresentative ofNorway supported therequest byEFTA. Hetook note oftheUnited
States 'position andunderstood thatitwasageneral one,pending further guidelines from theCouncil
forTrade inGoods. Henoted thatEFTA hadbeen granted observer status intheCommittee ofRules
ofOrigin under theCouncil forTrade inGoods. Thenature ofEFTA 'swork inthedevelopment of
standards andconformity assessment procedures based oninternational standards wasclosely linked
tothework oftheCommittee. Given theimportance ofthecurrent meetings oftheCommittee, he
supported theproposal togrant observer status toACP andEFTA onanadhocbasis without prejudice
tothedecisions which would betaken under theCouncil forTrade inGoods.
7. TheCommittee agreed togrant observer status toACP andEFTA onanadhocbasis, pending
further decisions. TheChairman concluded thatfurther consultations would beneeded fortherequest
byOIV andALADI. Therequest forobserver status bytheACP, EFTA, OIV andALADI would be
included intheagenda ofthenext meeting.
B. TECHNICALWORKINGGROUPOFTHECOMMITTEEONISO/IECGUIDESRELATING
TOARTICLES 5AND 6OFTHE AGREEMENT -REPORT ONSECOND MEETING
8. TheTechnical Working Group oftheCommittee onISO/IEC Guides Relating toArticles 5
and6oftheAgreement helditssecond meeting on18June, aimed atassisting theCommittee toconsider
whether itwasnecessary toadopt recommendations regarding relevant ISO/IEC Guides onconformity
assessment procedures. Mr.McMillan waselected astheChairman oftheTechnical Working Group
atthatmeeting.G/TBT/W/52
Page 3
9. Hegave anoralreport totheCommittee. Hesaidthatinaddition toanoralreport tothe
Committee after each Working Group meeting, ithadbeen agreed thatafinal orinterim report would
besubmitted after theOctober meeting oftheGroup, sothatitwould betaken intoaccount bythe
Committee inthecontext oftheTriennial Review inNovember.
10. Hesaidthatatthemeeting, anumber ofMembers hadshared their experiences intheuseof
ISO/IEC Guides atthenational level andhadexplained theimportance oftheGuides infurthering the
quality oftheir conformity assessment bodies andtherefore contributing tointernational trade through
therecognition oftheir testresults andcertificates. Mention hadbeen made inparticular toGuides 22,
25,58,61,62and65.Most interventions hadunderlined thevoluntary nature oftheir implementation
oftheISO/IEC Guides. Some indicated thattheGuides hadbeen transposed intonational standards,
thusgiving them more importance. Members hadbeen invited tosubmit relevant information tothe
Secretariat, sothatitcould becompiled indocument G/TBT/W/43 "Practical Experience ofIndividual
GovernmentsandInternationalOrganizationsinUsingInternationalGuidesonConformityAssessment".
11. Hesaidthattherelationship between therelevant ISO/IEC Guides andtheTBT Agreement
hadbeen thecentre ofdebate. TheGroup hadstarted byrecognizing thattheguides ingeneral were
important within thecontext oftheimplementation oftheAgreement. Thevastmajority oftheGroup
hadagreed thatitwould beuseful toreinforce thevisibility oftheguides, over andabove thereferences
which provisions oftheAgreement hadalready made ingeneral terms. Some Members hadexpressed
doubts ontheusefulness andconsequences ofanyendorsement oftheguides bytheCommittee. In
response tosuch doubts, ithadbeen underlined thattheguides were already recognized intheAgreement
andanyendorsement would notgobeyond theterms oftheAgreement. Theguides would remain
asvoluntary documents. However, theadvantage ofanendorsement would betogiveavisible political
signal totheeconomic operators thatthere wasanadvantage inhaving recourse tothose guides
voluntarily. Anumber ofMembers hadexpressed apprehensions about theeffect ofanendorsement
ontheprovisions ofArticle 12(Special andDifferential Treatment ofDeveloping Country Members).
Ithadbeen underlined thatanendorsement ofcertain guides would notchange theprovisions ofthe
Agreement andArticle 12would continue toapply.
12. Theneed wasgenerally expressed torestrict anyendorsement ofthose Guides which were of
ageneral andhorizontal nature, thereby excluding sectoral/vertical guides forparticular applications.
TheGuides which hadbeen themost quoted asbeing endorsable were thefollowing: 22,25,39,43,
58,61,62,65.However, thelistwasindicative andsubject toverification byMembers.
13. Thediscussion hadthrown uptwoother issues: (i)thedifficulty ofendorsing guides which
wereintheprocessofbeingrevisedorwhichwereoutofdateorwhichhadshortcomings(e.g.Guide39);
and (ii)thequestion ofendorsing guides which ISO/CASCO was transforming into standards
(e.g. Guide 25). This underlined theneed foranyendorsement tobealiving document which would
beregularly revisited. Anumber ofMembers hadrequested thattheWTO bemore proactive vis-à-vis
ISO/IEC, suggesting that itcould/should askISO/IEC toinvestigate andreport onthelevel of
implementation oftheguides bytheir national members, toupgrade thepresent guides and/or tocomplete
thepresent series inview offacilitating theimplementation oftheAgreement.
14. Mr.McMillan concluded thatwithout prejudice tothepositions oftheMembers who stillhad
apprehensions ontheconsequences ofanendorsement ofsome oralloftheGuides, andsubject tofinding
appropriate wording tocover theissues relating totheevolution oftheGuides andtherelationship of
such anendorsement with theprovisions ofArticle 12,thegroup hadaccepted thattheChairman of
theGroup andtheSecretariat would attempt todraw upaninformal document which could form the
basis ofarecommendation fortheCommittee, using thelanguage oftheinitial recommendation of
theTokyo Round TBT Committee asastarting point. Ithadbeen suggested thatthedocument could
contain asuggestion foralistofthemost appropriate guides tobeendorsed, ontheunderstanding thatG/TBT/W/52
Page 4
allMembers would come tothenextmeeting with their suggestions onthisissue. Moreover, theGroup
hadalsoaccepted toexamine, fordiscussion atthenextmeeting, thequestion ofthedegree ofproactivity
thattheWTO could/should exercise onISO/IEC inthisfield.
15. TheCommittee agreed thatrepresentatives from theISO/CASCO, ILAC andIAFwould be
invited totakepartinthenextmeeting oftheGroup inorder tohelpclarify some ofthemore technical
issues.
16. Therepresentative ofEgypt explained thatherdelegation hadbeen oneofthose thatwas
apprehensive about theendorsement ofcertain ISO/IEC Guides. Shethought thatadditional timewould
beneeded tolook intothelegal implications ofanendorsement, since theAgreement itself encouraged
theuseofinternational guides; andtoanalyse theconsequences ofendorsing only anumber ofGuides,
andhow itcould effect thebalance ofalltheGuides intheir entirety. Shesaidthatherdelegation
would goalong with thesuggestion about thepreparation ofaninformal document. However, she
emphasized thatoneshould notdiscuss thelanguage ofarecommendation before discussing thetotal
implications oftheissue.
17. Therepresentative ofMexico thought thattherecommendation taken bytheTokyo Round
Committee hadbeen apassive one. TheCommittee should takeaproactive roleinregard toISO/CASCO
activities which included notonly seeking information from CASCO ontheapplication ofISO/IEC
Guides byMembers, butalsotomake recommendations toCASCO, IAForILAC onissues ofinterest
toWTO Members andontheneed forsetting upinternational systems tosupport mutual recognition
ofconformity assessment results, inparticular those regarding accreditation ofcertifying bodies. She
suggested thatitmight beatopic tobetaken upbytheCommittee inthecontext oftheTriennial Review.
18. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthathisdelegation would examine theinformal document and
their view would beexpressed atthenext meeting oftheWorking Group.
19. Therepresentative ofPakistan emphasized thatatthenextmeeting, theWorking Group would
startdiscussions from thebasic question ofwhether arecommendation oftheCommittee ontheGuides
wasneeded. Itwould depend upon themeaning andimplications ofsuch anendorsement. Inthisrespect,
expert opinion from theSecretariat andadraft textoftherecommendation might beneeded inorder
toanalyse itsimplications. Heraised thequestion ofhow toproceed toprepare forthenext meeting
oftheGroup.
20. TherepresentativeofSingaporeindicatedthathisdelegationwasoneofthosewhohadquestioned
theadvisability ofanendorsement exercise. Hesaidthatitmight bepremature toformulate language
forarecommendation before clarifying itsimplications. Hisdelegation would goalong with the
suggestion ofpreparing aninformal draft document. However, oneshould keep inmind thatsuch a
document hadnostatus.
21. Therepresentative ofNigeria indicated thathisdelegation hadquestioned theneed foran
endorsement ofcertain ISO/IEC Guides. Henoted thatArticles 2.4,5.4andparagraph FoftheCode
ofGood Practice required Members touseinternational standards orrelevant parts ofthem, asabasis
fortheir technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures andstandards, except when theywere
ineffective orinappropriate and subjected toArticle 12.4 inrespect tothetechnological and
socio-economic conditions ofdeveloping country Members. However, theAgreement didnotmake
reference toanyparticular guide andtoanymonitoring mechanism forthescrutiny ofthose guides.
Hesaidthatitwasnecessary toclarify theimplications ofsuch anendorsement. Hethought thatin
order tomake recommendations onspecific guides, itmight benecessary fortheCommittee tolook
intothedetails anddisciplines ofthose guides. Heraised concerns onhow recommendations could
bemade bytheCommittee without Members knowing thecontent ofsuch guides. Henoted thataG/TBT/W/52
Page 5
decision hadbeen taken bytheISOthatsome oftheISO/IEC Guides would evolve intostandards and
questioned itsimplications.
22. TheChairman oftheTechnical Working Group reiterated thattheinformal document tobe
prepared would notbeadraft orproposal. Itwould aimatgiving anindication ofwhat anendorsement
could look like. Members could, onthatbasis, look intotheconsequences ofsuch anendorsement.
23. Therepresentative from theISOwelcomed theCommittee 'sdecision togrant observer status
toISOinthenext Technical Working Group meeting. Heinvited anysuggestions from Members and
indicated thatISOwould provide anynecessary information tofacilitate theunderstanding oftheexisting
ISO/IEC Guides andthose which were under preparation. Heinformed theCommittee thatISO/CASCO
wasregularly evaluating, ateach ofitsmeeting, theneed toreview itsGuides. TheGeneral Assembly
oftheISOhadformally agreed thatCASCO might inthefuture, convert certain existing ISO/IEC Guides
intointernational standards with aview tofacilitate international harmonization. Adecision hadbeen
taken toconvert Guide 25(revised) intoaninternational standard, andthetarget dateforthecompletion
ofsuch adocument would beinSeptember 1998. CASCO hadalsodecided toundertake asurvey
oftheadvisability ofrevising Guide 39which wasdueforreview, andtoconvert itintoaninternational
standard onthebasis ofanEuropean document EN45004.
24. TheChairman noted thattheTechnical Working Group anditsmandate hadbeen established
bytheCommittee. Thedocument tobeprepared bytheChairman oftheTechnical Working Group
would beanon-document with thesolepurpose ofillustrating what theoutcome ofarecommendation
might possibly be.Ifthere were anydecision onwhether toadopt recommendations fortheuseof
relevant ISO/IEC Guides, itwould betaken upbyMembers attheCommittee itself. Hesuggested
thatbefore thenextTechnical Working Group meeting, theChairman ofthatGroup would holdinformal
consultations with interested delegations onthedraft non-document, andtheSecretariat would consult
withrelevantdivisionsoftheWTOonthelegalimplicationsofanendorsementofcertainISO/IECGuides
bytheCommittee.
25. TheCommittee took note ofthestatements made.
C.PREPARATION FOR THE FIRST TRIENNIAL REVIEW OFTHE OPERATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.4
26. TheChairman drew attention tothefactthatunder Article 15.4oftheAgreement, theCommittee
would carry outitsfirsttriennial review oftheoperation andimplementation oftheAgreement nolater
than theendof1997. The Triennial Review would beconducted attheCommittee meeting of
12-13 November "with aview torecommending anadjustment oftherights andobligations ofthe
Agreement where necessary toensure mutual economic advantage andbalance ofrights andobligations,
without prejudice totheprovisions ofArticle 12.Having regard, inter alia,totheexperience gained
intheimplementation oftheAgreement, theCommittee shall, where appropriate, submit proposals for
amendments tothetextoftheAgreement totheCouncil forTrade inGoods." HesaidthatMembers
hadbeen invited tosubmit papers, non-papers andproposals forthepurpose oftheReview. Upto
thepresent, papers hadbeen received from thedelegations oftheEuropean Communities (G/TBT/W/36),
Japan (G/TBT/W/39), theUnited States (G/TBT/W/40), Canada (G/TBT/W/41), New Zealand
(G/TBT/W/44), Switzerland (G/TBT/W/45) andSingapore (G/TBT/W/47). Inaddition, inresponse
toarequest bytheCommittee, theSecretariat hadprepared abackground paper onthe"Restrictive
TradeEffectsofStandards,TechnicalRegulationsandConformityAssessmentProcedures"(G/TBT/W/42)
aspartoftheexercise fortheTriennial Review. Delegations were welcome tosubmit further papers,
non-papers andcomments. However, inview ofthelimited time available until theNovember meeting,G/TBT/W/52
Page 6
heproposed thatallpapers beprovided assoon aspossible, sothatthere would beenough time for
Members toprepare forafruitful discussion.
27. Therepresentative ofSingapore introduced theSingapore paper andsaidthatitwassupported
bytheASEAN countries. Heemphasized thattheCommittee should notprejudge atthisstage, whether
adjustmentstotherightsandobligationsoftheTBTprovisionswouldbenecessary.Onlywithathorough
review ofthestatus oftheimplementation oftheAgreement, andtheproblems arising thereof, would
Members beinaposition tomake such judgement. Thus, theTriennial Review should bedevoted
tomaking athorough examination andstudy ofstatus oftheimplementation oftheAgreement.
28. Therepresentative ofBrazil introduced apaper prepared byhisdelegation which would be
distributedshortly(G/TBT/W/48).HesaidthattheTBTAgreement,afteritsfirstthreeyearsofexistence,
hadyielded positive effects. However, certain countries, inparticular developing countries, continued
tohave difficulties incomplying with specific obligations. Hethought thatthepriority objective of
theTriennialReviewshouldbetofacilitatethepursuitofconditionsthatwouldpermittheimplementation
oftheAgreement.Therefore,anyamendmentsorformalchangestotheAgreementwouldbeinopportune
atthisstage.
29. Therepresentative ofIndia indicated thathisdelegation wasintheprocess ofpreparing apaper
fortheReview anditwould besubmitted shortly.
30. The representative ofNorway supported theview that thefirst Triennial Review should
concentrate onimproving theadministration andimplementation oftheAgreement rather thanpresenting
proposals forsubstantial amendments oftheAgreement itself. Hesaid thatatthisstage, Norway
considered thefollowing issues important. First, theuseofinternational standards byMembers. In
thisregard, Norway supported asurvey with theaimofunderstanding thedegree towhich Members
useinternational standards asabasis fortheir technical regulations. Henoted thatinthecaseofNorway,
50percent ofallnew standards adopted atthenational level represented theimplementation of
international standards. Second, theneed foreffective andefficient procedures intheadministration
andimplementation oftheAgreement -notonly inthefield ofconformity assessment butallaspects
oftheAgreement. Hethought thatitwasimportant thattheusers oftheAgreement, (i.e.thecompetent
authorities andeconomic operators inMembers) understood theobligations under theAgreement, such
asmutual recognition, thedifferent aspects ofconformity assessment, thenotion ofunnecessary barriers
totrade andsoon.Third, aneed foraclearer definition oftheconcept of"international standard" and
"unnecessary barriers totrade", aswell asother central concepts under theAgreement wasnecessary.
Fourth, theneed tofurther clarify theobligations concerning conformity assessment procedures was
alsonecessary. Norway, therefore, welcomed thediscussions taking place intheWorking Group on
ISO/IEC Guides relating toArticles 5and6oftheAgreement.
31. Therepresentative ofMexico suggested thatthefirsttaskoftheTriennial Review should be
toreview theimplementation ofexisting provisions without prejudging theneed foranyadjustment
oftheAgreement. Thesecond taskwould betoidentify problems thatmight require recommendations
forpossible adjustment. This might relate toafuture work programme oftheCommittee. With regard
toanyproposals designed foradjustment oftherights andobligations oftheAgreement, herdelegation
proposed thefollowing four principles: (i)they should bebased ontheexperience learnt from the
operation andimplementation oftheAgreement thus far; (ii)they should address issues ofgeneral
interest orproblems affecting allMembers; and(iii)they should address horizontal issues. Because
ofthegeneral nature oftheAgreement providing horizontal disciplines totechnical regulations, standards
andconformity assessment procedures, separating disciplines foraspecific sector orarea, such as
environmental standards, should beavoided. (iv)Itwould benecessary toanalyse howineach proposal,
onedealt with Article 12asstated under Article 15.4. Sheindicated herdelegation 'sintention tosubmit
apaper fortheTriennial Review.G/TBT/W/52
Page 7
32. Therepresentative ofEgypt drew attention tothefactthatArticle 15.4included aphrase “without
prejudice totheprovisions ofArticle 12”.Shesupported theview expressed byMexico ontheneed
toanalyse ineach proposal how onedealt with Article 12.
33. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities thought thattheobjectives oftheTriennial
Review should betofocus ondefining theimmediate operational measures under theterms ofthe
Triennial Review forthefullimplementation andproper operation oftheAgreement; anddefining
afuture work programme fortheCommittee. Shenoted thattheimplementation oftheAgreement
wasfarfrom satisfactory andthatthefirstaimoftheReview should betoensure abalance ofrights
andobligations ofallMembers under theAgreement. AllMembers should besubject tothedisciplines
oftheAgreement which included theareas ofnotification under Article 15.2 ofmeasures taken by
Members toensure theapplication oftheAgreement; theacceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice;
notification procedures fordraft technical regulations andprocedures forconformity assessment; the
implementation ofISO/IEC Guides tofacilitate conformity assessments; andtheuseofinternational
standards andthetransparency oftheir use. Referring tothelong term aimofdefining awork
programme, itshould focus ontechnical regulations andthevarious concepts involved andthe
consequences formarket access. Shethought thatthegoal should betofacilitate trade ingoods and
toprevent theemergence oftechnical barriers totrade. Inthisrespect, thework programme should
include thefollowing features: (i)conformity assessment procedures -inparticular theconsideration
ofmanufacturers 'selfdeclarations andmutual recognition ofconformity assessment; (ii)international
standards-thenecessarymeasurestoreinforcetheimplementationoftheobligationsundertheAgreement;
and(iii)thereview ofthevarious national, regional andinternational standardizing bodies.
34. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatduring theTriennial Review, theCommittee should
trytoobtain asmuch information aspossible with respect tomeasures taken byMembers forthe
implementation oftheAgreement. TheCommittee should also trytoclarify certain areas ofthe
Agreement.
35. Therepresentative ofNigeria saidthattheAgreement wasimportant, inparticular fordeveloping
countries exporting products intheglobal market. Henoted thattheAgreement wasrelatively new
andthere wasvariability inlevels ofperformance andadministration oftheAgreement among Members.
TheTriennial Review wasaneducational andcapacity building process forhiscountry andsome other
Members. Forthisreason, itshould notlook intoadditional obligations. Thepriority should beplaced
ontheimplementation andadministration oftheexisting Agreement. Attention should bepaid tothe
issues ofinternational standards, technical assistance andchanging nature ofinternational standards.
Hesupported theview expressed byMexico ofhighlighting theissues thathadsystemic implications
andhorizontal importance fortheAgreement. Heasked theChairman onhowwork might beorganized
inthefuture months relating todiscussions onalltheissues putforward byMembers fortheTriennial
Review.
36. TheChairman drew attention tothefactthattheCommittee would have lessthan fivemonths
forthepreparation oftheTriennial Review andtofinalize itsreport totheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
Heurged Members tohold discussions aimed atachieving apositive result fortheReview. Hesaid
thatinorder tofacilitate discussions, aninformal compilation ofissues putforward byMembers to-date
hadbeenprepared,andsuggestedthattheCommitteeproceedwithitsdiscussions,followingthesub-items
listed intheinformal list. Hereiterated thattheindicative listwhich hadnoformal status would be
updated andrevised regularly toinclude allproposals andcomments made bydelegations.
(1) Implementation andAdministration oftheAgreement relating toArticle 15.2
37. TheChairman drew attention toArticle 15.2 which states that"each Member shall, promptly
after thedateonwhich theWTO Agreement enters intoforce forit,inform theCommittee ofmeasuresG/TBT/W/52
Page 8
inexistence ortaken toensure theimplementation andadministration ofthisAgreement." This isa
one-time notification byeach Member ofthelegislative, regulatory andadministrative actions ithas
taken toensure thattheprovisions oftheAgreement areapplied. TheCommittee hasadopted Decisions
andrecommendations regarding thestatements (G/TBT/1/Rev.4).
Relevant proposals:
(i) Submission ofstatements byMembers
(ii) Evaluation ofthemeasures taken toensure implementation andadministration ofthe
Agreement byMembers
38. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatnotifications under Article 15.2were
important andthatMembers should submit them atthelatest byNovember 1997 when theTriennial
Review would takeplace. ForMembers whohadnotyetdone so,technical assistance should beprovided
toenable them toovercome anydifficulties theymight encounter innotifying themeasures. With respect
totheevaluation ofthenotifications, shethought thatinaddition tothose requirements contained in
theCommittee ’sDecision (G/TBT/1/Rev.4), itwould beuseful toidentify further requirements that
might beneeded. Shedrew attention tothefactthattheAgreement provided anobligation tolimit
thenumber ofauthorities entrusted with notification obligations. Forthisreason, Members should
designate anauthority responsible forapplying notification procedures. Shesuggested thatsuch
informationshouldappearinthestatementunderArticle15.2andnotificationsunderArticles2.9and5.6.
39. The representative ofEgypt suggested thatbefore finding ways andmeans toensure the
submission ofstatements under Article 15.2, orevaluate themeasures taken byMembers, theCommittee
should first look intowhy theresults ofimplementation hadnotbeen satisfactory, thedifficulties
encountered byMembers andhow such difficulties, ifany, could beaddressed.
40. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesdrewattentiontodocumentG/TBT/W/40whichcontained
herdelegation ’spriorities fortheTriennial Review andreaction tocertain proposals introduced byother
Members, including thatproposed byNew Zealand onapproaches toregulatory policy. Inrespect to
thesubmission ofstatements byMembers under Article 15.2, sheshared theview thattheresult had
notbeen satisfactory. Only 49ofthe131Members hadsubmitted their statements, although they had
been reminded oftheir obligations onseparate occasions. Shesupported thesuggestion byEgypt that
theCommittee should seek thereasons astowhy some Members hadnotsubmitted their statements
andthedifficulties faced bythem. Shesaidthatitmight beduetothefactthatthey were uncertain
about thekind ofinformation thatshould beprovided. Shenoted thattheUnited States hadbeen a
SignatoryoftheTokyoRoundAgreementandduringtheenteringintoforceoftheWTOTBTAgreement,
herdelegation hadsubmitted abrief statement providing information onimplementation. Itmade
reference tothestatement made under theTokyo Round. While thatwasconvenient forearlier Members
toavoid reproducing documents with detailed information, some oftheunderstanding ofthestatements
might have been lost. Forthisreason, andtoavoid theburden ofadditional paper work, herdelegation
hadsuggested thatitwould beuseful forMembers togive oralpresentations tohelp further elaborate
what wasbehind their submissions. Theprocess might alsobeinstructive forthose Members whohad
notyetsubmitted their statements, clarifying what information wasneeded.
41. Therepresentative ofMexico, referring toproposals onArticle 15.2, thought thatthefirststep
should betoassess andevaluate what hadbeen achieved sofarinterms ofMembers submitting their
statements.ShenotedthatafairnumberofMembershadnotyetsubmittedtheirstatementsandsupported
theEgyptian proposal thattheCommittee should identify theproblems faced bythose Members. She
took note oftheproposals made bytheUnited States andtheEuropean Communities with regard to
theassessment ofmeasures. However, shethought thattheywould have theeffect ofnewobligations,G/TBT/W/52
Page 9
astheAgreement didnotcontain anyprovisions fortheassessment orevaluation ofmeasures taken
byMembers toensure theimplementation andadministration oftheAgreement. Shethought thatafter
identifying problems faced byMembers indischarging existing obligations, asecond stepmight be
tolook intowhether such arecommendation waspossible.
42. Therepresentative ofIndia thought thattechnical assistance wasmost important. Without
adequate technical assistance, Members, inparticular developing countries, would notbeabletofulfil
their obligations ontheimplementation andadministration oftheAgreement, including those relating
tonotifications.
43. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand placed importance ontheobligations under Article 15.2
andthought thatMembers could treat theoccasion oftheReview asalearning andinformation exchange
process. Hesupported thepoint made byEgypt thatitwasnecessary tounderstand why theresult of
notifications under Article 15.2 hadnotbeen satisfactory. Hesuggested thatitmight beduetothe
factthatdelegations feltuncomfortable with presenting their views onthefullrange ofimplementation
issues under theAgreement. Forthisreason, hethought Members should useanyopportunities available
tolearn from each other thedifferent steps taken atthenational level toimplement theAgreement by
regulation makers, standardizing bodies andother relevant agencies. Hesawvalue intheproposal by
theUnited States regarding exchanges ofnational experience, andthought thatitmight notfocus on
particularlegislation,butratheronthevariousadministrativeandregulatoryprocessesinplaceindifferent
Members. Heindicated thathisdelegation would, atanappropriate time, share with other Members
stepstakenbyhiscountryduringtheenteringintoforceoftheUruguayRoundTBTAgreement,including
toprovide information torelevant agencies toensure thatthedisciplines oftheAgreement were fully
respected bytheregulation making system andstandardizing bodies inNew Zealand.
44. Therepresentative ofColumbia reiterated theimportance ofArticle 15.2 andsupported the
view thattheTriennial Review should focus onensuring notifications byMembers. Heshared the
Egyptian view onidentifying problems faced byMembers inthisregard. Inrespect totheproposals
ontheevaluation ofmeasures, hequestioned what should beevaluated andwhether theTriennial Review
would provide enough time forsuch assessment. Hesuggested thatitcould belooked at,atalater
date.
45. Therepresentative oftheUnited States clarified thatherdelegation 'sproposal with respect to
Article 15.2 wassimply toexchange information andexperience among Members onavoluntary basis
with theintention offurther understanding anddeveloping possible good practices thatcould serve as
models fordelegations who might beseeking assistance. Itwasnotintended tobeanevaluation. She
thought thatMembers hadopportunities inon-going meetings todraw theattention oftheCommittee
tospecific problems inthisrespect.
46. Therepresentative ofCanada emphasized theimportance oftheobligations under Article 15.2
andsupported theview thatinorder toimprove compliance with theprovisions, theCommittee should
identify difficulties faced bysome Members tocomply with Article 15.2. Hesupported sharing national
experience asaway toidentify possible problems andtechnical assistance needs.
(2) Notification Procedures under Articles 2,3,5and7oftheAgreement
47. TheChairman drew attention tothefactthatunder Articles 2.9.2, 2.10.1, 5.6.2 and5.7.1 of
theAgreement, Members should notify other Members through theSecretariat ofdraft technical
regulations orconformity assessment procedures notinaccordance with relevant international standards
orguides, andiftheregulations orprocedures might have asignificant effect ontrade ofother Members.
Thenotification obligations apply alsotolocal governments onthelevel directly below thatofthecentral
government (Articles 3.2and7.2). Henoted thatthose periodic notifications ofchanges intechnicalG/TBT/W/52
Page 10
regulationsandconformityassessmentproceduresbycentralgovernmentsandlocalgovernmentsprovided
opportunities forcomments byother Members, todiscuss thecomments upon request, andtotakethose
comments andresults ofdiscussions intoaccount.
Relevant proposals:
(i) Notification obligations ofMembers andlocal governments onthelevel directly below
thatofthecentral government inMembers
(ii) Notification procedures toensure opportunities forcomments byother Members
48. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities drew attention tothefactthatfewnotifications
hadbeenmadeunderArticles3and7ofdrafttechnicalregulationsandconformityassessmentprocedures
prepared bylocal governments inMembers. Shethought thatitwould improve theunderstanding of
thesituation ifMembers would indicate totheCommittee anylocal government bodies intheir territories
which were authorized toadopt regulatory provisions.
49. Shestressed theimportance ofnotifying technical regulation atthedraft stage before adoption
toensure opportunities forcomments byother Members. Shesuggested thatitwould beappropriate
forthetextofthedraft regulation andthetranslation ortranslated summary (inoneoftheWTO
languages) ofrelevant documents tobeattached tothenotification senttotheSecretariat, sothatthe
deadline laiddown forcomments could berespected. Sherecalled thattheCommittee hadrecommended
a60dayperiod forcomments, andsuggested thatthe60days should becounted from thedateofthe
publication ofnotifications bytheSecretariat.
50. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland said thatthe60daycomment period should becounted
following thepublication ofanotification bytheSecretariat within 10days ofitsreceipt. Concerning
thenotification format, sheproposed thefollowing additional information tobeprovided byMembers:
(i)under item 6,amore detailed summary describing thedraft technical regulation orconformity
assessment procedure, including themain points ofthedraft; and(ii)inaddition tothename ofthe
authority responsible fornotification, thename oftheauthority responsible forthedraft, ifdifferent,
andaddresses ofallrelevant authorities. ShesaidthattheCommittee should alsoinvestigate how a
procedure would operate (similar tothatunder Article 18.7 oftheAgriculture Agreement) sothatother
Members could issue acounter-notification when aMember failed tofulfil itsnotification obligation.
51. Therepresentative ofEgypt thought thatitwould benecessary tohave astock taking exercise
toobtain anoverview ofhow Members were implementing theexisting notification obligations. She
supported theproposals thatthetranslation ortranslated summary ofadraft regulation beattached to
thenotification when senttotheSecretariat. Shethought thatitwould ensure transparency andfacilitate
other Members wishing tomake comments.
52. TherepresentativeofJapanrecalledthathisdelegationhadraisedtheirconcernwiththeincreasing
numberofnotificationsprovidingaperiodforcommentshorterthanwhatwasstipulatedintheAgreement
orrecommended bytheCommittee. Hethought thatbefore taking anyadditional steps, itwould be
better fortheCommittee toseek ways toensure theproper observation oftheexisting obligations.
Referring totheproposal onthe"attachment oftexttonotification", hesaidthattheCommittee should
look intoitcarefully, since there wasnoinformation onhow many notifications were actually looked
intoandwith requests being made forfurther information byother Members, itwasdifficult toevaluate
thecosteffectiveness ofsuch aproposal. Inaddition, theproposal related totranslation problems which
could beasensitive issue forhisdelegation.G/TBT/W/52
Page 11
53. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported thecomments made byJapan questioning
whether itwasnecessary toaddtotherecommendations already made bytheCommittee on60days
ofcomment period. Shethought theCommittee should beprudent when considering additional
recommendations. However, shestressed theimportance ofnotifications being submitted andissued
asquickly aspossible sothatthetimeavailable forcomments would notbeshortened. Shedrew attention
totherelevant recommendations made bytheCommittee (page 13ofG/TBT/1/Rev.4) that"anotification
should bemade when adraft with thecomplete textofaproposed technical regulation orprocedures
forassessment ofconformity isavailable andwhen amendments canstillbeintroduced andtaken into
account".
54. Therepresentative ofSingapore saidthatasnotification obligations intheTBT Agreement were
among themost extensive ofallWTO Agreements, theCommittee should notseek tointroduce more
transparency provisions. Instead, thefocus should betoensure theproper andfullimplementation
oftheexisting transparency provisions. Timely notification ofproposed technical regulations, standards
andconformity assessment procedures attheir drafting stage wasessential toensuring transparency.
TheCommittee should give impetus tosuch timely notification.
(3) Code ofGood Practice forthePreparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards -Annex 3
oftheAgreement
55. TheChairmannotedthatitwasanobligationunderArticle4forcentralgovernmentstandardizing
bodies toaccept andcomply with theCode ofGood Practice. Members shall take such reasonable
measures asmaybeavailable tothem toensure thatlocal government, non-governmental andregional
standardizing bodies accept andcomply with theCode.
Relevant proposals:
(i) Acceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice bystandardizing bodies
(ii) Coordination ofactivities among standardizing bodies atvarious levels
(iii) Provision onequivalence parallel tothatofArticle 2.7oftheAgreement
56. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatEgypt wasoneofthefirstcountries which hadaccepted
theCode ofGood Practice andwould encourage other Members todoso.However, sheadded that
theacceptance oftheCode should bewithout prejudice toMembers 'views onthecoverage ofthe
Agreement onnon-product related processes andproduction methods. Shethought thatcoordination
ofactivities among standardizing bodies atvarious levels wasimportant andsupported theproposal
concerning equivalence ofstandards. Shesaid thattheCommittee should look intoextending the
applicability ofArticle 2.7totheCode ofGood Practice andthought thatitwould serve asagood
basis forbetter coordination andharmonization ofactivities among standardizing bodies.
57. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatherdelegation placed importance
ontheacceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice bystandardizing bodies. Shethought thatitrelated
tothebalance ofrights andobligations among Members. Shesaidthatupuntil thepresent time the
results hadnotbeen satisfactory, andsubstantial progress should bemade inthecontext oftheTriennial
Review. Shesuggested thatinthecourse oftheexercise, itwould beuseful tohear explanation from
Members onwhy standardizing bodies within their territory hadnotyetaccepted theCode asrequired
under Article 4.Shequoted from theCanadian paper which stated thatstandards although voluntary
innature, could have trade restrictive effects. Inthelight ofthesituation, shethought thatthepriority
oftheCommittee should betoensure theacceptance oftheCode aswidely aspossible, before holding
discussions onpossible new provisions onequivalence ofstandards.G/TBT/W/52
Page 12
58. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland supported theEuropean Communities 'proposal onMembers
providing reasons fornon-acceptance oftheCode. Shesuggested thatinorder tohelp ensure the
acceptance oftheCode, Members could provide alistincluding allstandardizing bodies within their
territories, sothatthelistcould becompared with theonecontaining bodies which hadaccepted the
Code.
59. Therepresentative ofIndia supported theview expressed byEgypt concerning theCode of
Good Practice. Asregard equivalence, hethought thatwhile equivalence wasaprecursor tomutual
recognition, ISO standards could notipso facto beconsidered forthepurpose, duetotheir lack of
international character (few developing countries, especially small andmedium sizeenterprises exporters,
could participate inthestandard making process) andtheabsence of"consensus" asunderstood inthe
WTO.
60. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand supported theproposals ongreater encouragement forthe
acceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice bystandardizing bodies, andforthecommunication among
standardizing bodies atvarious levels. Hesuggested thattheCommittee could consider how itwould
encourage strengthening cooperation andcoordination ofactivities among allstandardizing bodies,
including international standardizing bodies, inthisregard.
61. Hesupported theideaofequivalence ofstandards andsuggested twosituations where theconcept
could beapplied: (i)inthecasewhere adomestic standard derived from, orinpartfrom, international
standards, there should beprocedures atthenational level torecognize thatthedomestic standard and
thatofother countries 'were seeking similar objectives because ofthecommon derivation assetout
intheinternational standards; and(ii)incase where norelevant international standard existed, there
should beprocedures foracountry torecognize andaccept thatastandard/standards applied inanother
country/other countries could meet their own national objectives. Inorder toaccept other Members '
standards asequivalent, itwould benecessary toestablish streamlined procedures ineach Member
allowing fortheidentification ofinstances where national objectives could beachieved bydifferent
standards ofother Members.
62. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthattheCode ofGood Practice wasapartoftheAgreement
anditwasimportant forMembers toaccept it.Sheshared thestatements made byother delegations
oncoordination ofstandardizing bodies. Sheexpressed herdelegation 'sinterest intheCanadian proposal
onequivalence ofstandards. Shesaidthatfurther considerations would begiven toitandwould be
reflected intheforthcoming Mexican paper. TheMexican View ontheissue wasnotjustamatter
oftransferring Article 2.7totheCode ofGood Practice, butrather tolook intorevising thewording
oftheprovision.
63. Therepresentative ofSingapore thought thatitwould beuseful fortheCommittee tocontemplate
formulating provisions similar toArticle 2.7(equivalency fortechnical regulations) forinclusion in
theCode ofGood Practice.
64. Therepresentative ofBrazil, referring totheissue ofequivalency under Article 2.7,thought
thatinthecaseoftechnical regulations, equivalency wasanadequate form ofharmonization, ifsimilar
objectives existed. However, inthecase ofstandards which normally consisted oftechnical aspects,
compliance with international standards should always bepursued. Inthecase ofeco-labelling
programmes/schemes, theCommittee could explore ways toaddress theissue ofequivalency asaway
ofpreventing theuseofthose practices astrade barriers.
65. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisdelegation realized theimportance oftheacceptance
oftheCode ofGood Practice. However, hethought thatthere wasnoneed toqualify theacceptance
assuggested byEgypt. Concerning "equivalence ofstandards", hesaidthathisdelegation 'spositionG/TBT/W/52
Page 13
contained intheCanadian paper wasclear. Hetook intoaccount theBrazilian comment thatitwas
thesecond bestsolution next totheuseofinternational standards. However, asecond bestsolution
might beneeded.
66. Therepresentative ofJapan stressed theimportance ofacceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice
bystandardizing bodies andthatstandard development processes should reflect opinions ofinterested
parties. Coordination ofstandardizing bodies atvarious level, including international, regional and
national levels, wasuseful toeliminate duplication ofwork andshorten theduration ofstandard
development. Headded that transferring standardization work from onestandardizing body to
international standardizing bodies should be,inprinciple, preferable.
67. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities supported theJapanese proposals with respect
tointernational standards andtheroleofinternational standardizing bodies, andsuggested thattheissue
should betreated asoneoftheitems inthefuture work programme oftheCommittee. Improved
coordination ofstandardizing bodies would strengthen thestandardizing roleasawhole. Shedrew
attention toacooperation formula developed inEurope with international standardizing bodies (the
European standardizing bodies CEN andCENELEC with ISOandIEC) andsaidthatitshould provide
abasis forworking outaharmonized solution toproblems attheworld level. Shesuggested thatit
would beuseful toobtain information onhowthose international standardizing bodies cooperated with
other regional standardizing bodies. Improved coordination ofstandardizing bodies should aimnot
onlytoavoidduplicationofactivities,butalsotorespectthehierarchicalsituationonstandardsworldwide.
68. Referring totheconcept ofequivalency, shethought thatthesuggestion wastempting. However,
inreality itmight becontentious anddifficult toimplement. Shedrew attention totheEuropean
Communities 'experience andsaidthatinorder toensure harmonization, theEuropean Communities
didnotbase itself onnational equivalence, butrather sought todevelop aharmonized approach with
aview toeliminating divergences innational provisions. Shethought thatinamultilateral context,
itwould bedifficult toachieve what hadnotbeen possible ataregional level. Herdelegation gave
priority tointernational standards rather than perusing equivalence ofstandards.
69. Therepresentative ofArgentina recognized theneed toencourage theacceptance oftheCode
ofGood Practice. However, hethought theproposals made bytheEuropean Communities and
Switzerland, bywayofposing questions tostandardizing bodies which hadnotaccepted theCode as
totheir reason fornon-acceptance, would create additional burdens tothose bodies. Hesuggested that
before posing such questions tostandardizing bodies, theCommittee should seek toexplain to
standardizing bodies thebenefits they would gain from joining theCode. That could betaken upin
theform ofadocument prepared bytheSecretariat orbydelegations. Heexpressed interest inthe
Canadian proposal onequivalence ofstandards andsaidthathisdelegation didnothave astrong opinion
onthat, while recognizing thatequivalence wasthesecond bestsolution.
70. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported thesuggestion made byArgentina toinform
standardizing bodies oftheadvantage ofaccepting theCode soastoprovide them theincentive todo
so.Shenoted thatnostandardizing bodies intheUnited States hadaccepted theCode, although there
wasnoproblem forthem tocomply with theobligations under theAgreement andthere hadbeen
extensive discussions inhercountry ontheobligations under theAgreement andtheobligations for
standardizing bodies tonotify their acceptance oftheCode.
71. Therepresentative ofSingapore thought thattheproliferation ofvoluntary standards could have
apotential adverse impact ontrade, andsuggested thattheCommittee could ascertain ways toenhance
thetransparency ofstandards applied bynon-governmental standardizing bodies.G/TBT/W/52
Page 14
(4) International Standards
72. TheChairman drew attention toArticles 2.4and5.4oftheAgreement andparagraph Fofthe
Code ofGood Practice which states thatMembers should userelevant international standards andguides,
ifthey existed ortheir completion wasimminent, asabasis fortheir technical regulations, conformity
assessment procedures andstandards, except when such international standards ortheir relevant parts
would beanineffective orinappropriate means forthefulfilment ofthelegitimate objectives pursued,
orotherwise (under Article 12.4) notappropriate tothedevelopment, financial andtrade needs of
developing country members.
Relevant proposals:
(i) Strengthening andmonitoring theuseofinternational standards byMembers
(ii) Procedures andactivities ofinternational standardizing bodies
(iii) Definition ofinternational standards
(iv) Potential trade distorting impact ofcertain international standards
(v) Coordination and cooperation oftheWTO/TBT Committee and international
standardizing bodies
73. TherepresentativeofJapannotedtheimportanceofpromotingthealignmentofnationalstandards
with international standards. However, there existed anumber ofinternational standards with which
national standards could notbealigned duetothefactthattheydidnotreflect up-to-date technological
information, nordidthey appropriately meet therealmarket needs. Hesaidthatsuch international
standards should berevised andsuggested thatitwasnecessary todevelop amechanism sothatMembers,
when recognized theexistence ofinappropriate international standards, could proactively request their
nationalstandardizingbodiestoinformrelevantinternationalstandardizingbodiesoftheneedforrevision.
Hedrew attention toalistprepared byhisdelegation containing 20international standards which had
been recognized tobeout-of-date. HesaidthattheJapanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC),
theJapanese national body ofISO/IEC, hadproposed therevision ofthose standards totheISOand
IEC.
74. Therepresentative ofMexico expressed interest intheproposals andcomments made regarding
thedefinition ofaninternational standard. Shethought thattheCommittee should start byclarifying
thedefinition ofaninternational standardizing body, before moving ontoreview what itmeant byan
international standard inWTO language. Adefinition ofaninternational standardizing body should
bemade inthenature ofeffective participation ofWTO Members inbothdecision making andindrawing
upstandards inthatbody.
75. With respect toreviewing theprocedures andactivities ofinternational standardizing bodies,
herdelegation would seek measures providing allWTO Members better proactive access toparticipate
indiscussions andtheelaboration ofinternational standards. Concerning monitoring theuseof
international standards byMembers, sheproposed thattheCommittee should firsthave anexchange
ofviews ontheextent onwhich Members were using existing international standards, notwith aview
toscrutinizing other Members 'legislation, buttoidentify possible problems encountered byMembers,
their authorities, national standardizing bodies andindustries inusing international standards. Thismight
help finding solutions sothatinternational standards could beproperly applied.G/TBT/W/52
Page 15
76. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthattheTriennial Review would provide
Members with opportunities tolook intointernational standards because oftheir importance, their role
intheAgreement andinstrengthening future work oftheCommittee. Herdelegation 'sproposals
contained indocument G/TBT/W/36 aimed atimproving transparency inthisfield. They alsoincluded
theadvisability ofdeveloping therelationship between theWTO andinternational standardizing bodies,
andtoestablish certain requirements with respect tostandardization attheinternational level sothat
international standards could beproperly implemented byMembers. These requirements related to
priority andtransparency ofwork ininternational standardizing bodies. Concerning theuseof
international standards byMembers, herdelegation proposed tointroduce provisions formonitoring
procedures based onexperience gained intheframework oftheAgreement ontheApplication ofSanitary
andPhytosanitary Measures (SPS). Regarding thedefinition ofaninternational standard, shesuggested
that, inview ofthecomplexity ofthisissue, itcould bedealt with intheCommittee 'sfuture work
programme, probably with aspecial working party being established.
77. Therepresentative ofSingapore noted thattechnical regulations established inaccordance with
international standards were "rebuttably presumed" nottocreate unnecessary obstacles tointernational
trade. Inother words, technical regulations based oninternational standards were presumed tobetrade
neutral. Nevertheless certain international standards could have adverse effects ontrade. TheCommittee
should, therefore, becautious about theproposals toincorporate suchstandards intotheTBT Agreement.
Heproposed thatathorough study ofthepotential trade distorting impact ofthese standards should
beundertaken before anydecision bemade toincorporate them intotheAgreement. While recognizing
theutility ofusing international standards forthepurpose ofharmonization, theCommittee should be
cognisant ofthedifficulties thatdeveloping countries could have inimplementing these standards.
Inthisconnection, Committee Members should take note ofArticle 12.4.
78. Therepresentative ofEgypt noted thatthere wasageneral recognition oftheimportance of
international standards. However, shequestioned ifthere wasacommon view ofwhat itmeant by
aninternational standard andthought thatitwasimportant tofirst clarify itsdefinition. Regarding
monitoring theuseofinternational standards byMembers, shequestioned ifthere were anymonitoring
requirements under theAgreement orifitwould constitute additional obligations andburdens for
Members. Shesupported theproposals made bySingapore concerning theadverse trade effects ofcertain
international standards, andoncloser cooperation andcoordination oftheCommittee with international
standardizing bodies. Herdelegation recognized theimportance ofaproactive WTO involvement in
international standardization, andinthisregard, shesuggested thattheCommittee could look intothe
possibilityofdevelopingproactiveprocedures.Shethoughtthatinternationalstandardizingbodiesshould
take intoaccount theon-going discussions intheWTO onthismatter.
79. Therepresentative ofIndia supported theproposal todevelop amore articulate definition of
international standards. Hesaid that, inthatrespect, itwasnecessary totake into account their
effectiveness orotherwise forthefulfilment oflegitimate objectives pursued, like climatic and
geographical factors, orfundamental technological problems. Itwasnecessary totake intoaccount
thatthepurpose ofstandardization wastoimprove theefficiency ofproduction, tofacilitate international
trade, toensure thatunnecessary trade barriers were notcreated, andtotransfer technology from
developed todeveloping country Members. Henoted thatintheWTO, standardization processes had
toberestricted tostandards asapplicable toproducts orrelated processes andproduction methods.
80. Therepresentative ofCanada supported thesuggested approach tobring concrete examples
ofinternational standards with which Members encountered problems. Hewelcomed theJapanese
delegation 'scontribution ofbringing their experience totheattention oftheCommittee. Hethought
thatthese discussions would provide theCommittee with therelevant knowledge ofMembers 'national
practices andhow international standardizing bodies developed standards.G/TBT/W/52
Page 16
81. Regarding procedures andactivities ofinternational standardizing bodies andcoordination and
cooperation oftheCommittee with international standardizing bodies, hethought thefirststepwould
betoinvite relevant international bodies tomeetings oftheCommittee inorder toincrease Members '
awareness ofactivities inthose bodies. Healsostated theimportance ofpromoting coordination and
cooperation atthenational level. Hepointed outthathisdelegation benefited from thepresence of
experts from theStandards Council ofCanada sothatitcould beinformed oftheCanadian system
andpractices. Heencouraged other delegations todothesame andbenefit from their national experts.
82. Referring tothedefinition ofaninternational standard, hisexperience withtheCanadian business
communities demonstrated thatindustries knew what international standards were. Henoted thatmost
international standardizing bodies comprised thesame Members astheWTO. Hethought thatthe
Committee should becareful when discussing thismatter sothatitwould notappear tobequestioning
thework ofsome other national bodies, including those inthevoluntary sector. Herecognized that
delegations hadtheroleofproviding policy direction andadvice. However, afinelinecould bedrawn.
83. The representative ofPakistan, referring tothedefinition ofinternational standards and
international standardizing bodies, thought thatthedefinition ofaninternational body orsystem as
contained inAnnex 1oftheAgreement: "Body orsystem whose membership isopen totherelevant
bodies ofatleast allMembers" might notbeenough, andthatthenotion ofeffective participation should
beincluded inthedefinition.
84. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported theimportance ofeffective participation and
transparency ininternational standardizing bodies. Sheagreed thatthedefinition ofinternational
standardizing body ascontained inAnnex 1might notbesufficient. However, shereiterated the
importance ofthebasic obligations under theAgreement forusing international standards.
85. Therepresentative ofBrazil noted thattheAgreement acknowledged theimportance oftheuse
ofinternational standards tofacilitate international trade. Therefore, itwould beimportant tofindways
toencourage andtostrengthen their use. More Members should beencouraged toaccept andcomply
with theCode ofGood Practice forthePreparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards. Thiswould
help strengthen theprocess ofinternational standardization.
86. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand agreed thatitwasimportant toconsider thedefinition of
international standards. Henoted theexistence ofanumber ofstandards which were notrecognized
asinternational standards because they hadnotbeen adopted byinternational standardizing bodies,
although they were commonly used ininternational trade.
87. Heexpressed interest infurther proposals concerning thenotion ofeffective participation in
international standardization. Hesuggested linking discussions onthesub-items of"Strengthening and
monitoring theuseofinternational standards byMembers" and"Potential trade distorting impact of
certain international standards". Heexpressed interest intheJapanese proposal, listing out-dated
international standards, andthought ituseful forfocusing discussions inthisarea. Hesuggested that
itmight beuseful toadopt anegative listing ofinternational standards which were notused soasto
highlight where theproblems were inthisregard.
88. Herecalled paragraphs 33-35 oftheNew Zealand paper which recognized thesignificant trade
impact inusing international standards astechnical regulations incertain contexts. Henoted that
Article 2.4oftheAgreement encouraged Members toadopt international standards ortherelevant parts
ofthem asthebasis foratechnical regulation. Heemphasized thatinorder tominimize trade barriers,
only thepartofaninternational standard which wasnecessary toachieve legitimate objectives should
beused toestablish atechnical regulation. Voluntary standards provided animportant foundation for
technical regulations inmany sectors. However, because they reflected awide range ofperspectivesG/TBT/W/52
Page 17
andneeds, theymight contain requirements notessential tofulfil thelegitimate objectives oftechnical
regulations. Forthisreason, calling uptheentirety ofvoluntary standards inmandatory technical
regulations could have theeffect ofimposing unnecessary costs onbusinesses andcreating unnecessary
obstacles totrade.
89. Therepresentative ofNigeria shared theview expressed bySingapore andNew Zealand that
aconnection oftheutility ofinternational guides andstandards asabasis fortechnical regulations,
conformity assessment procedures andstandards ofMembers should notbeautomatic. Henoted that
under Article 2.4,Members were encouraged toadopt international standards ortheir relevant parts
when theywould beeffective. Aspointed outbyMexico, theobligation wassubject totheexceptions
laiddown under Article 12.4 fordeveloping country Members. Hewelcomed theexperience sharing
bytheJapanese delegation andsupported theview thatitcould beinappropriate toadopt international
guides orstandards under certain national circumstances orduetothefactthatsome ofthem were
obsolete.
90. Therepresentative ofSingapore saidthattheCommittee should consider procedures toprovide
forcloser coordination andcooperation oftheCommittee andinternational standardizing bodies.
91. Therepresentative ofISO, responding tocomments made bytheJapanese delegation concerning
obsolete international standards, noted thateach ofthe10,500 ISOstandards andthe3,000 IECstandards
wassubmitted every fiveyears (more frequently, ifneeded) toareview bytheir members todetermine
whether itshould beconfirmed, revised orwithdrawn. However, itcould happen insome cases, that
ISO members hadalack ofinterest anddidnotanswer theenquiries. This could result inobsolete
standardsremainingintheISOportfolio.TheISOTechnicalManagementBoardsupervisingthetechnical
programme ofISOwelcomed theJapanese Industrial Standards Committee 'slistofout-dated standards.
Aninvestigation wasbeing conducted intheTechnical Committees responsible forthepreparation and
updating ofthose standards andtheresults would bereviewed atthemeeting oftheTechnical
Management Board inSeptember 1997. Heinvited WTO Members toprovide further information on
ISOstandards which they considered obsolete.
92. Referring tothedefinition ofterms concerning standardization andrelated activities, hedrew
attention toISO/IEC Guide 2which contained thedefinitions ofinternational standardizing organizations
andaninternational standard. Henoted thatISO/IEC Guide 2(edition 1991) which wasreferred in
Annex 1oftheTBT Agreement hadbeen revised in1996. Thedefinition ofaninternational standard
given inGuide 2concerned only voluntary consensus standards. However, thedefinition given inthe
TBT Agreement concerned both consensus andnon-consensus standards. Hewould provide copies
ofISO/IEC Guide 2andfurther information tointerested Members, ifneeded.
(5) Technical Regulations
93. TheChairman recalled paragraph 22oftheCommittee 'sReport fortheSingapore Ministerial
Conference (G/L/122) which stated that"Itisfeltimportant toensure thatathorough examination of
allaspects oftheTBT Agreement relevant totechnical regulations, standards andconformity assessment
procedures canbecarried outatthetriennial review inorder tostrengthen implementation oftheexisting
disciplines andfurther theAgreement with theaimoffacilitating trade through more efficient and
effective regulation."
Relevant proposal:
Guidelines forthepreparation, adoption andreview oftechnical regulationsG/TBT/W/52
Page 18
94. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand considered theissue ofgood regulatory design forthe
development oftechnical regulations akeypriority oftheTriennial Review. Hedrew attention tothe
New Zealand paper which attempted toprovide practical guides, aiming toassist allthose involved
indesigning andimplementing technical regulations atthenational level tofulfil their obligations under
theAgreement, while achieving national legitimate objectives. Hethought those guides would help
develop abetter understanding among Members ofthepractical steps needed inthepreparation, adoption
andreview oftechnical regulations inaccordance with therequirements oftheAgreement. They would
providethekeyfordevelopingleasttrade-restrictivetechnicalregulationsandsubstantiallyassisteffective
implementation oftheAgreement.
95. Hisdelegation supported thestrategies under theAgreement, encouraging harmonization and
recognitionasequivalenttechnicalregulationsofotherMemberstofacilitateworldtrade.Thosestrategies
were ofmost usewhen differences inconditions ofcountries involved were notsignificant. However,
when conditions were different, itcould bedifficult topursue harmonization andrecognition of
equivalence. Under such circumstances, therequirements under theAgreement forthepreparation,
adoption andapplication oftechnical regulations would have much tooffer. Furthermore, harmonization
andrecognition ofequivalence would bemore effective ifnational regulatory approaches reflected the
requirements ofgood regulatory design assetoutintheAgreement.
96. Hesuggested thefollowing twostage process forregulatory authorities toconsider when
contemplating theintroduction ofatechnical regulation. First, toconsider whether aregulation was
needed toaddress theproblem athand. This involved aconsideration ofthenature andmagnitude
oftheproblem, andoftheoptions which could offer most effective andleast trade-restrictive approaches
toachieving theobjectives. Theoptions included: maintenance ofthestatus quo; reliance ongeneral
law; educational programmes; economic instruments, such astaxes ortradeable property rights;
insurance andliability laws; codes ofconduct/practice; industry self-regulation; ortechnical regulations.
Second, ifaregulation wasrequired, andatechnical regulation wasdeemed tobethemost effective
form ofregulation, thetechnical regulation must bedeveloped inaccordance withalldisciplines outlined
intheAgreement. Itmust reflect theprinciples ofnational andmost favoured nation treatment; it
must benomore trade restrictive than necessary; itmust bemonitored andreviewed asnecessary;
itmust reflect international standards where appropriate; itmust beperformance based (and recognized
asequivalent other means ofachieving thedesired outcome); itsdevelopment must betransparent and
consultative; and thecompliance procedures adopted must notcreate unnecessary obstacles totrade
andmust betheminimum necessary toprovide confidence.
97. Therepresentative ofJapan welcomed theNew Zealand paper. Hethought thepaper provided
comprehensive andsystematic approaches forthepreparation oftechnical regulations intheleast trade
restrictive way. Hesaidthattheimplementation ofArticle 2.4concerning harmonization oftechnical
regulations through theuseofinternational standards, while important, could bedifficult, taking into
account thecost andeffectiveness. Inorder topromote harmonization, thecoordination between
government authorities preparing technical regulations andnational standardization bodies wasessential.
Itwasrecognized thatdifferent authorities might prepare different technical regulations with similar
technical contents. This situation wasatypical example ofduplicating work among government
authorities andwasnotpreferable. Ifnational standards were aligned torelevant international standards
andcovered thetechnical contents required bytechnical regulations, technical regulations could use
therelevant national standards asreference. Inother words, national standards could beused asasoft
infrastructure commonly used bytechnical regulations.
98. Heintroduced theJapanese government action plan foreconomic structure reform which was
recently adopted bytheJapanese Cabinet. Theaction plan expressed thatexisting Japanese industrial
standards (JIS) would bereviewed inorder tomeet theneeds ofnational standardization body, relevant
ministers andagencies. This would promote harmonization between JISandtechnical regulations, inG/TBT/W/52
Page 19
other words, topromote thereference ofJISbytechnical regulations. Inthiscontext, hisdelegation
proposed thefollowing recommendation fortheconsideration ofother Members: "Inorder topromote
theimplementation ofArticle 2.4oftheTBT Agreement, coordination between governmental authorities
andnational standardization bodies isessential. Inthisregard, authorities should usenational standards
asreference totechnical regulations asfaraspossible when such national standards areregarded as
being based upon relevant international standards."
99. Therepresentative ofAustralia supported theNew Zealand paper andrecalled thatitwaslargely
based ondiscussions thattook place atanAPEC Standard andConformance Sub-Committee meeting
held inMay 1997. Shenoted thattheprinciples setoutinthepaper were consist with Australian
government policy.
100. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported theNew Zealand paper. Shethought that
thepaper gave abroad, comprehensive andpractical perspective totheobligations under theAgreement.
Ithadbeen endorsed within theAPEC andreflected thediscussions thathadtaken place intheOECD
onthebenefit ofregulatory reform toreduce technical barriers totrade. Shethought thatitwasimportant
toimplement theAgreement andtoensure thatdomestic regulators, standard-developers andtrade policy
officials understood theAgreement. Inthiscontext, thepaper wasconsidered useful asitoutlined in
apractical way, anumber ofitems which were considered tobegood practice forusers oftheAgreement.
Sheinvited other Members toconsider theproposals.
101. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitieswelcomedtheNewZealandpaper.Shethought
thatthepaper wasthorough andcould assist andfacilitate better understanding andimplementation
oftheAgreement.
102. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand welcomed thecomments made concerning hisdelegation 's
paper andinvited interested delegations fordiscussions before oratthenext meeting. Henoted the
importance ofimplementing theAgreement, inparticular inthearea oftechnical regulations, given
their mandatory nature which could have significant effects ontrade.
103. The representative ofSwitzerland supported thepromotion ofharmonization oftechnical
regulations. Her delegation suggested that theCommittee should consider thefollowing issues:
(i)identify thevarious existing types ofharmonization, while benefiting from theexperience ofprivate-
standard harmonization; and(ii)determine thetypes ofharmonization which would bestmeet theneeds
ofMembers, while avoiding duplication ofthework inother bodies.
(6) Conformity Assessment Procedures
104. TheChairman noted thatunder Article 5.1.2 oftheAgreement, Members should ensure that
their conformity assessment procedures were notprepared, adopted orapplied with aview toorwith
theeffect ofcreating unnecessary obstacles tointernational trade. Thismeans, inter alia,thatconformity
assessment procedures shall notbemore strict orbeapplied more strictly than isnecessary togive the
importing Members adequate confidence thatproducts conform withtheapplicable technical regulations
orstandards.TheAgreementalsoencouragestheuseofrelevantinternationalguidesorrecommendations
forconformity assessment procedures (Article 5.4); toenter intonegotiation fortheconclusion of
agreementsformutualrecognitionofresultsofeachother'sconformityassessmentprocedures(Article6);
andtoformulate andadopt international systems forconformity assessment (Article 9).
Relevant proposals:
(i) Effective andefficient proceduresG/TBT/W/52
Page 20
(ii) Guides orrecommendations issued byinternational standardizing bodies
(iii) International andregional systems forconformity assessment under Article 9ofthe
Agreement
(iv) Mutual recognition agreements under Article 6oftheAgreement, including the
transparency ofsuch agreements under Article 10.7
(v) Unilateral/Autonomous recognition
105. Therepresentative oftheUnited States drew attention toArticle 6.4oftheAgreement and
suggested thattheCommittee should make reference andhave afulldiscussion onthatprovision. She
thought thatitmight fallwithin thescope ofunilateral recognition andcould bedeveloped intoaconcept
similar tothatofmutual recognition.
106. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatwith respect toconformity assessment systems, itwas
important toprovide technical assistance todeveloping countries todevelop operational procedures.
Before portability ofcertification wasconsidered andcould besuccessfully engendered, theoperation
ofArticle 12should bediscussed.
107. Therepresentative ofHong Kong noted thegrowing concerns about therestrictive trade effects
resulting from multiple testings andconformity assessment procedures. Hesuggested thatMembers
should review thefollowing practices fortrade facilitation: (i)when situations allow, manufacturers '
selfdeclarations should beaccepted; (ii)ifexternal assessment wasdeemed inevitable, Members should
consider arrangements forrecognizing results ofconformity assessments performed bytrading partners;
and(iii)thatunilateral recognition oftestresults andcertificates would beanefficient option.
108. Henoted theemerging interest inconcluding mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) among
Members onabilateral basis which were relevant toArticle 6andother provisions oftheAgreement.
Hethought thatMembers might wish toconsider andagree oncertain working criteria which could
giveeffect tothose provisions. Hedrew attention toparagraph 38oftheSecretariat paper (G/TBT/W/42)
andsaidthatthere were useful bench-mark criteria suggested. Hisdelegation supported theproposal
toexplore theideaofdrawing upvoluntary guidelines forMRAs andsuggested thatthefollowing should
beincluded: (i)there should beobjective criteria forthepurpose ofrecognition; (ii)bilateral MRAs
should notbeinward looking. They should pave theway foramore open arrangement thatother
interested parties begiven sufficient opportunity toconclude such agreements onanon-discriminatory
basis;and(iii)suchagreementsorarrangementsshouldnotexcludeproductsofthirdpartyoriginbecause
what wasatissue should bethequality andcompetence oftheassessment services rather thantheorigin
oftheproducts. Hethought thatthiswasparticularly useful fordeveloping countries where conformity
assessment services might notbeadequate.
109. Therepresentative ofSingapore recognized thatfurther clarification oftheconcepts ofmutual
recognition andequivalency could facilitate theelimination oftrade distortive effects oftechnical
regulation,standardsandconformityassessmentprocedures.HeconcurredwiththeCanadiandelegation's
concerns ontheportability ofcertification. Henoted thattheprovisions fortheconclusion ofMRAs
intheexisting Agreement wasweak andmerely encouraged countries toconclude MRAs ontheresults
ofconformity assessment procedures. Given thecosts associated withthenegotiation ofbilateral MRAs,
hesuggested thatitwould beuseful iftheTriennial Review could attempt tostrengthen theprovisions
onMRAs inthefollowing twopossible ways: (i)review ofArticle 6with aview toaddressing the
problems highlighted above; and(ii)asinthecase oftheWorking Party onProfessional Services
(WPPS), theCommittee could attempt todraw upvoluntary guidelines forMRAs.G/TBT/W/52
Page 21
110. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland referring toeffective andefficient procedures forassessment
ofconformity, saidthatamanufacturer 'sdeclaration ofconformity should betherulerather than the
exception because itcould circumvent theproblems ofsome conformity assessment procedures which
industry feltdidnotprovide satisfactory protection fortrade secrets. Shenoted thatatpresent, the
conditions didnotseem right forageneralized introduction ofmanufacturer 'sdeclarations. However,
anexamination ofconditions necessary fortheuseofamanufacturer 'sselfdeclaration inthesectoral
legislation could behelpful. Thestudy should avoid duplication ofwork with other bodies andshould
include thequestion ofwhymanufacturers 'declarations were possible incertain sectors andnotinothers.
Thefollowing issues could beexplored: (i)thesubmission bymanufacturers ofdocumentations required
bynational legislation todemonstrate measures taken toguarantee theconformity ofproducts; (ii)an
effective system ofproduct liability; and(iii)adequate supervision ofthemarket orindependent
monitoring ofproducts marketed toensure thatrelevant requirements hadbeen met. Shethought that
thestudy could betaken upasthefuture work programme oftheCommittee.
111. Shedrew attention toArticle 6.1which required Members toensure, whenever possible, that
theresults ofconformity assessment procedures ofother Members were recognized, provided thatthey
were satisfied thatthose procedures offered anassurance ofconformity with applicable technical
regulations orstandards equivalent totheir ownprocedures. Shesaidthatinorder tomake autonomous
recognitionpossible,thetechnicalcompetenceoftheconformityassessmentbodiesinexportingMembers
must beaccepted. Such competence should beassessed inaccordance with international standards.
Forthisreason,themaximumpossibleuseof,orreferenceto,internationalstandards/guidesforqualifying
conformity assessment bodies should beencouraged. Thiswould callforatwo-phase procedure: (i)the
identification (within theISO/IEC Guides Technical Working Group) ofthepertinent international
standards/guides inthevarious sectors andtheexisting solutions; and(ii)theCommittee encouraging
therecognition ofcompetence ofbodies -andhence thecertificates they issued -when thishadbeen
demonstrated onthebasis ofinternational standards/guides. TheCommittee should consider theextent
towhich theactivity ofsuch bodies might benefit from apresumption ofconformity.
112. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatselfdeclaration ofconformity bysuppliers wasingeneral
considered tobetheleast trade restrictive conformity assessment procedure andshould beconsidered
asfirstchoice forMembers. Hesuggested thatISO/IEC Guide 22should berespected when suppliers
conducted selfdeclaration.
113. Hisdelegation considered international harmonization ofconformity assessment procedures,
including theuseofrelevant ISO/IEC Guides (Guides 22,25,39,58,61,62and65),wasimportant
toreduce technical trade barriers. Henoted thathisgovernment recognizing theimportance ofthe
Agreement, hadrevised theJapanese Industrial standardization law. Decisions hadbeen made touse
ISO/IEC Guide 65inJapanese Industrial Standards (JIS), andISO/IEC Guides 25and58inthenewly
created laboratory accreditation system.
114. Heintroduced totheCommittee theJapanese Certification System andtheJISMark operated
under JISLaw which would beeffective on26September 1997. HesaidthatJISmark wasareliable
toolformanufacturers, especially small andmedium sized enterprises (SMEs), todemonstrate thattheir
products satisfied specifications ofJISandasaresult improve purchasers 'confidence. TheJISMarking
System wasoperated byresponsible ministers andthelicence ofJISMark could begranted when a
factory completed successfully theassessments ofeach minister. Theassessment procedures included
evaluations onboththefactory 'squality system andtheproduct. Third party private certification bodies
wouldbeintroducedintotheJISMarkingSystemandcouldlicenceJISMarksontheirownresponsibility.
Relevant ministers would designate certification bodies, including foreign bodies, iftheymetnecessary
therequirements based upon ISO/IEC Guide 65. Headded thatinorder tofacilitate aproducer 's
declaration onnon-designated JIS,competent testing laboratories would beaccredited byresponsibleG/TBT/W/52
Page 22
ministers andthecriteria would bebased onISO/IEC Guide 25.Foreign testing laboratories could
beaccredited ifthey fulfil thecriteria.
115. Therepresentative ofNew Zealand supported theview thatamanufacturer 'sdeclaration based
onISO/IEC Guide 22wasapreferred option forconformity assessment procedures compared tothe
more comprehensive third parties certification ortesting, andhigher level intervention. However, this
kind ofselfdeclaration would stillrequire certain action. Henoted thatthere existed practices which
would allow products having mettherelevant requirements ofregulations tobeputinthemarket place
anditwasuptotheregulators toundertake thenecessary surveillance toensure compliance.
116. Regardingreducingtradebarrierscreatedbythirdpartycertifications,hethoughtthatthecommon
practice ofunilateral/autonomous recognition waspreferable tomutual recognition agreements (MRAs).
One should notcreate toomuch expectation with respect toMRAs between governments because of
theintensive work andtime needed fortheir negotiation andofthefactthatnotmany ofthem had
yetbeen concluded. Heinformed theCommittee thathisgovernment asaresult ofanalmost sixyear
long negotiation with theEuropean Communities hadconcluded anMRA. This wasexpected tobe
signed andwould create benefits forboth parties. However, there existed both useful andlessuseful
features, including theoneconcerning rules oforigin asindicated byHong Kong.
117. Inthecontext ofcompetent bodies, henoted thatthere existed intheprivate sector, numerous
national, regional orinternational bodies andaccreditation systems (such asILAC andIAF) which
accredited conformity assessment bodies andrecognized their competence. Hequestioned thereason
foradditional confidence requirements byindividual government forthose bodies which hadalready
demonstrated their competence andhadbeen accredited bydifferent accreditation systems. Hethought
thatagovernment should dotheminimum over andabove what hadalready been inplace under the
accreditation systems.
118. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidthatdifferent forms ofconformity assessment procedures might
beused aslong astheir results could beaccepted byother parties. Henoted thedifferent technological
background anddevelopment inMembers andthought thatitwasmore important fortheCommittee
tolook intothepossibility oftheacceptance ofresults bydifferent conformity assessment procedures
rather thantodefine thekind ofconformity assessment procedures tobeused. Inorder toreduce costs
andfacilitate trade, theprinciple of“onestandard, onetest,onetime”should bepursued tofacilitate
trade. This principle implied complex conditions concerning mutual reliance andconfidence between
Members which, inmost cases, demands high levels oftechnical competence. Asaresult, theuseof
common procedures such asrelevant ISO/IEC Guides would benecessary toachieve confidence between
Members. Hethought thatitwould beuseful fortheCommittee tomake recommendations forthe
useofISO/IEC Guides, asinthecase oftheTokyo Round Committee. Henoted theexistence of
different forms ofConformity Assessment procedures, including manufacturers 'selfdeclarations of
conformity. However, itwould demand ahigh level development ofconformity assessment systems
andwould depend onthemeans available toensure effective andadequate liability ofsuppliers that
would bedifficult attheinternational level. Henoted thatArticle 6.1.1 andAnnex 1oftheAgreement
referredtoaccreditationofcertifyingbodiesandlaboratoriesaspartofconformityassessmentprocedures.
Hethought thattheCommittee could initiate adeeper analysis ofthisissue, taking intoaccount the
increasing importance ofaccreditation systems atthenational andinternational level.
119. TherepresentativeofMexicosaidthatherdelegationconsideredconformityassessmentprocedures
animportant issue andwould submit detailed proposals onit.Shebroadly agreed with theconcerns
expressed andseveral oftheproposals made byother Members, inparticularly those which would provide
solutions totheproblems ofcertification. Shesaidthatitwasimportant toensure thatexisting standards
andnational standards adopted onthebasis ofinternational standards were useful incertification. SheG/TBT/W/52
Page 23
expressed interest with theinput from theISOandISO/QSAR andhowtheycould contribute tosolving
theproblems ofcertification, inparticularly with respect tosmall andmedium sizeenterprises.
(7) Technical Assistance under Article 11
120. TheChairman recalled thatattheCommittee 'sfifth meeting, theChairperson hadexpressed
theview thatimplementation oftheTBT Agreement wasproceeding slower than would bedesirable
inrelation tothesubmission ofstatements under Article 15.2, andthenumber ofstandardizing bodies
thathadaccepted theCode ofGood Practice. Totheextent thatthiswasduetorealtechnical difficulties
oralack ofawareness oftheobligations under theAgreement, theSecretariat hadbeen encouraged
toredouble itstechnical assistance work inthisarea.
121. TherepresentativeofBrazilthoughtthatitwasnecessarytoincreasetechnicalassistanceactivities
tomeet theneeds ofdeveloping countries sothattheAgreement could befully implemented. Inthis
context, special attention should begiven tothedevelopment andtraining ofhuman resources.
122. TherepresentativeofEgyptsaidthattheSecretariatshouldbeencouragedtoredoubleitstechnical
assistance work inorder toovercome thetechnical difficulties ofMembers andtocreate theawareness
ofobligations under theAgreement. Heshared theview expressed byBrazil thattraining ofhuman
resources wasanimportant areaoftechnical assistance. Developed country Members could contribute
bysharing their experience intheapplication oftheAgreement.
123. Therepresentative ofNigeria recalled thatabriefing session byexperts ontheAgreement and
related issues hadbeen organized bytheChairman andtheSecretariat inApril. Hequestioned ifa
seminar orsymposium ofthatkind could beelaborated again, preferably back toback with thenext
meeting, sothathisdelegation andseveral others could profit from it.
124. TherepresentativefromtheSecretariatrecalledthatatthebriefingsessioninApril,representatives
from theISOandtheWorld Bank hadbeen invited toaddress interested Members. Hesaidthatat
thisstage, there wasnoplanforfuture exercise ofthatnature. However, ifMembers thought ituseful,
theSecretariat andtheChairman could look intothepossibilities forhaving another briefing session.
(8) Special andDifferential Treatment under Article 12
125. Therepresentative ofEgypt recognized Article 12asanimportant element ofbalance inthe
Agreement andappreciated anyeffort toenhance andactivate itsprovisions inorder tohelpdeveloping
countries tobetter implement their obligations under theAgreement.
(9) Definition ofProportionality andLeast Trade Restrictive Measures Possible
126. Therepresentative ofEgypt underlined theimportance ofthedefinition ofproportionality and
leasttraderestrictivenessmeasures,notonlytoensuretheconsistencyintheapplicationoftheAgreement,
butalsotoenhance thestability initsapplication.
127. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthattoherdelegation, ashorthand definition of
proportionality andleast trade restrictive measures would notadequately oraccurately capture the
obligations under Article 2.2. Shenoted thatunder theAgreement, atechnical regulation should not
bemore trade restrictive than necessary tofulfil thelegitimate objectives. Itincluded thefollowing:
theexistence ofreasonably available alternatives, taking intoaccount technical andeconomic feasibility,
thealternatives which would besignificantly lesstrade restrictive andatthesame time would fulfil
thegovernment 'slegitimate objectives. Sherecalled thatsome relevant points hadbeen made inthe
New Zealand paper andsaidthatherdelegation would come back totheissue atfuture meetings.G/TBT/W/52
Page 24
(10) Environmental Standards
Relevant proposals:
(i) Eco-labelling
(ii) ISO14000 standards forenvironmental management systems
128. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisdelegation didnotintend tohold indepth discussions
oneco-labelling inthecontext oftheTriennial Review. Hedrew attention topara. 185oftheReport
oftheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment totheSingapore Ministerial Conference which stressed
theimportance ofMembers 'notifying eco-labelling programmes without prejudicing Members 'position
onthecoverage ofnon-product related PPMs.
129. Referring totheCanadian proposal toinitiate discussions onISO14000, henoted thatanumber
ofdelegations hadindicated their interest intheissue, butmore time would beneeded foritsanalysis.
Hedrew attention totheinformation provided bytherepresentative ofITCwith respect toanupcoming
report, andtoanexpert meeting oftheUNCTAD tobeheld on3-5November onISO 14000. He
encouraged active participation ofdelegations from both Geneva andcapitals andthought thatitwould
provide animportant occasion foreducation andanalysis. Hesuggested thatitmight beuseful for
UNCTAD toprovide relevant background papers.
130. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatIndia 'sposition oneco-labels waswell known through
itsinterventions intheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment. Hereiterated thatonly standards on
products andtheir related PPMs were covered under theTBT Agreement. Henoted thatISO14000
eco-labelling standards hadnotbeen fully developed andthought thatitwould bepremature tolook
atthem intheWTO. Hesaidthateven ifitwaspossible totreat non-product-related PPMs inatrade
neutral manner, acceptance oftheconcept intheWTO could result insome Members presuming
consistence ofsuch PPMs with WTO disciplines, intheir application vis-à-vistheir market access
commitments.
131. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities, referring tothescope oftheagreement in
relation toeco-labelling programmes based onproduct life-cycle andinvolving criteria relating to
non-product related PPMs, saidthatherdelegation ’sposition ascontained inadocument presented
totheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment (CTE) remained unchanged. ShesaidthattheCommittee
should continue examining thisquestion, inparticular inthecontext oftheCommittee onTrade and
Environment andsuggested thatitmight beuseful forthetwoCommittees tohold joint meetings.
Sheshared concerns expressed byanumber ofMembers, including those toensure thetransparency
ofdevelopment andoperation ofeco-labelling schemes. With respect tostandards onenvironmental
management systems, shedidnotthink they would fallwithin thescope oftheAgreement, since they
were used toimprove theglobal environmental performance ofcompanies andhadnodirect linkwith
products manufactured bythecompanies inquestion.
132. Therepresentative ofNigeria saidthatinrespect ofeco-labelling programmes, hisdelegation
hadawell established position intheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment. Heshared theview
expressed byIndia thatnon-product related PPMs were excluded from thescope oftheTBT Agreement.
Hesupported theproposal made bytheEuropean Communities forjoint meetings oftheCommittee
with theCommittee onTrade andEnvironment toavoid having discussions ontheissue indifferent
forum. Hesaid thathisdelegation hadmade asimilar proposal intheCommittee onTrade and
Environment which wasstillunder consideration bythatCommittee.G/TBT/W/52
Page 25
133. Therepresentative ofMexico reiterated thatgiven thattheAgreement applied toalltypes of
technical regulations andstandards ingeneral terms, theTriennial Review should notfollow avertical
approach andlook atspecific sectors. Shequestioned whether itwastheappropriate time forMembers
todiscuss thespecific issue ofeco-labelling. Herdelegation ’sview wasthatalllabelling requirements
were covered bythedisciplines oftheAgreement anditsAnnex 3(Code ofGood Practice onthe
Preparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards) regardless theinformation included onthelabels.
Itwasanother issue thatdealt with thelegitimacy orthelegality oftheinformation onthelabel itself.
Herdelegation wasgoing tohave aclose look atthecoverage oftheAgreement anditapplicability
toeco-labelling with respect tonon-product-related PPMs. Shethought thatatthisstage, itwould be
premature fortheCommittee tohold joint meetings with theCommittee onTrade andEnvironment
toconsider theissue ofeco-labelling. Inthelight ofexperience ofthelasttwoyears, shefeltthatit
might bebetter fortheCommittee tomove further inthesubstantive debate ontheissue andthenconsider
what todonext.
134. Therepresentative ofSingapore referring totheissue ofeco-labelling, emphasized thatdue
recognition should beaccorded tothenegotiating history oftheTBT Agreement andtotheconcerns
thathadbeen expressed ontheissue ofnon-product-related PPMs, particularly their potential trade
distorting effects andimpact ontheWTO legal system.
135. Therepresentative ofIndonesia reiterated theneed tocontinue discussions ontheissue of
environmental standards. Hesaidthatthere should begreater transparency with those standards and
thatthey should notbecome adisguised restriction totrade asfaced bydeveloping countries.
(11) Changing Nature ofStandards
ISO9000 andISO14000 -standards forquality andenvironmental management systems
136. Therepresentative ofCanada drew attention totheCanadian paper containing proposals on
thesubject matter andnoted thatsome ofthepoints under thisitem would fallintotheareas oftechnical
regulations andregulatory reform. Hisdelegation would come upwith further ideas inthecoming
months.
137. Therepresentative ofBrazil suggested thattheCommittee should analysis thetrade impact of
systems management standards -such asISO9000 and14000 -inorder todetermine how todealwith
theissues involved.
138. Therepresentative ofNigeria saidthattheCommittee should look intotheissue with care.
Itisimportant toknow what itintended todoandhow discussions would bemanaged because the
issuelinkedtoPPMsandGATTjurisprudencewhichhaditsresonanceoveratwo-yearperioddiscussions
intheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment.
139. Therepresentative oftheITC informed theCommittee thatastudy onthetrade impact of
ISO9000and14000standardswasunderpreparationbyUNIDOincorporationwithISOandtheEnglish
Organization Resource. Preliminary results might beavailable inSeptember 1997.
(12) Effect oftheAgreement onSMEs
140. Therepresentative ofSingapore noted thattheraison d'êtreoftheTBT Agreement wasto
facilitate theelimination oftechnical barriers totrade. Whether theAgreement hadfulfilled thisgoal
could only beascertained with empirical datashowing theeffect thattheTBT Agreement hadonexport
opportunities andmarket access. Case studies focusing ontheeffect oftheAgreement onsmall andG/TBT/W/52
Page 26
medium sized enterprises (SMEs) would beuseful. Hesuggested thattheSecretariat could undertake
such astudy.
(13) Annex 1Terms andtheir definitions forthepurpose oftheAgreement
141. TherepresentativeofBrazilthoughtthatitwasimportanttopreventdifferencesinunderstandings
andinterpretations between Members, e.g.,theconcept oflegitimate objectives oftechnical regulations
under Article 2.2. Itwas useful toharmonize theconcept andscope under theAgreement and
ISO/Guide 2.
142. TheChairman suggested thatforthepurpose ofmoving forward thediscussion oftheTriennial
Review, aninformal catalogue could bedeveloped bytheSecretariat compiling views, suggestions,
proposals andcomments made. Heinvited input from Members tobesubmitted totheSecretariat by
4Julysothatthefirstversion ofthecatalogue could bemade available before theendoftheSummer
break. Headded thatfurther proposals andcomments would bewelcomed andwould beincluded in
thecatalogue. Inadditional tothetwoformal meetings inOctober andNovember, heproposed to
schedule twoopen-ended informal meetings around themiddle ofSeptember andendofOctober.
143. TheCommittee took note ofthestatements made.
D. STATEMENTS ONIMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OFTHE
AGREEMENT
144. TheChairman reiterated Members 'obligations tosubmit their statements under Article 15.2
onMeasures taken toImplement andAdminister theAgreement. Henoted thatcurrently, 49Members
hadsubmitted their statements (G/TBT/2/ andAdd.1-33). Herecalled thatinMay, hehadsentreminders
toMembers who hadnotyetsubmitted their statements andurged them todosoassoon aspossible.
145. Therepresentative ofTurkey informed theCommittee thatTurkey hadsubmitted itsstatement
under Article 15.2 anditwould becirculated toMembers shortly.
146. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities raised their concern with newregulations on
tyres imported intoEgypt. Theassessment procedures adopted since November 1996 hadcreated
difficulties onthecompanies concerned. Shesaidthatthepermit licences needed forimported tyres
tobeputonmarket were notdelivered, ordelivered after alengthy period. Shequestioned ifsimilar
procedures existed fortheassessment oflocal production. Herdelegation hadsubmitted comments
andcontacted theEgyptian authorities since March 1997. However, there hadbeen noimprovement
inthesituation. Sherequested Egypt toprovide information onthemeasures taken, inparticular those
relating totheassessment ofdomestic production. Sheasked ifthere wasanyintention tospeed up
theissuing ofpermit licences forimported tyre.
147. Therepresentative ofEgypt noted thatthere hadbeen on-going bilateral consultations between
theEuropean Communities andhisauthorities ontheissue ofEgyptian regulations ontyres andhoped
thatsatisfactory results could bereached soon. Herequested thedelegation oftheEuropean Communities
totransmit itsintervention inwriting sothatitcould beaccurately conveyed back tohiscapital and
thatanswers could beprovided inthenear future.
148. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatfurther totheintervention byNorway atthemeeting
of14February, regarding Canadian technical regulations formarine cables, aresponse totheconcerns
raised hadbeen provided toNorway andtotheSecretariat forinterested delegations. Henoted that
therealissue athand wastheacceptance ofIEC92-353 andthewithdrawal ofIEC92-3, andnotwhether
Canada adhered tointernational IECstandards. Hesaidthatthestatus ofIEC92-3 wascurrently beingG/TBT/W/52
Page 27
addressed byIEC/TC128/SC18A ofwhich Canada wasamember. Given thetechnical nature ofthe
issues involved, hisdelegation hadagreed tohold discussions bilaterally with Norway.
149. TherepresentativeofNorwaywelcomedtheanswerprovidedbyCanadaandCanada’sreassurance
ofitswillingness touseinternational standards asabasis foritsregulatory work. Hesaidthathis
authorities would consult bilaterally with Canada attheexpert level andreserve itsrights topursue
thematter further within theCommittee, should theoutcome prove tobeunsatisfactory.
150. Therepresentative ofCanada drew attention toaFrench banonasbestos andnoted thatin
response totheCanadian request atthelastmeeting, technical justification ontheFrench measure had
been received from theEuropean Commission. Thejustification stated thattheprohibition wasbased
onthepreliminary report oftheInstitut National delaSantéetdelaRecherche Médicale (INSERM
Report). Herecalled thattheFrench banwasannounced shortly after therelease ofthedraft INSERM
Report before ithadbeen finalized. Hethought thatthefindings oftheReport didnotprovide an
adequate scientific basis fortheprohibition ofasbestos and products containing asbestos. A
Dunnigan-Gibbs study commissioned bytheGovernment ofQuebec considered theReport aslacking
thescientific rationale forbanning alltypes ofasbestos andallofitsapplications. Hesaidthatunder
theAgreement,technicalregulationsmustnotbemoretraderestrictivethannecessarytofulfilalegitimate
objective, taking account oftherisks non-fulfilment would create. Inassessing those risks, aMember
must consider available scientific andtechnical information. Inreviewing theINSERM Report, the
international group ofexperts established bytheRoyal Society ofCanada considered thatitoverestimated
therealthreat tothepopulation ofFrance andmight have underestimated thedifferences between fibre
types. Themortality statistics cited intheReport were primarily related topastpractices andlackof
current data onexposure, especially concerning lowlevel exposure. Thejustification stated thatthe
INSERM Report came outinfavour ofthe"most plausible hypothesis ofuncertainty". Hesought
clarification ofthatformula andasked ifitreferred totheprecautionary principle.
151. HesaidthatCanada andanumber ofcountries, both producers andconsumers ofasbestos and
asbestos products, shared France 'sconcern forthehealth ofthegeneral population, workers inthe
construction industry andother occupational groups. However, Canada believed thatthebanwasmore
trade restrictive than necessary toachieve theobjective ofprotection ofhuman health andsafety. He
suggested thatthepolicy ofcontrolled-use ofasbestos, based onrecognized scientific principles and
long-standing international consensus, wasanadequate waytofulfil theobjective andthatthere was
noscientific reason toabandon thepolicy oncontrolled-use ofchrysotile asbestos. Hethought that
theFrench measure wasadisproportionate reaction andwould notsolve thelong-standing problem
resulting from thepastuseofproducts containing friable asbestos inolder buildings. Thebanwould
notappropriately address theissue ofhealth andsafety ofworkers onconstruction anddemolition sites
because workers would stillhave towork with in-place non-friable asbestos products. Hisauthorities
would continue topursue thematter inallavailable fora.
152. Therepresentative ofColombia shared concerns ofCanada with respect totheFrench banon
theimport ofasbestos andasbestos products. Herecalled thattheColombian Minister ofForeign Trade
hadmade comments following thenotification oftheFrench measure. Questions hadbeen raised on
why thebanwasbased only ontheINSERM Report while other institutions andinternational studies
hadestablished thattheuseofasbestos could besafeifproperly handled. Hethought thatanimport
banwasnotjustified forthepurpose ofprotecting workers andconsumers. Inorder tominimize any
riskincurred inhandling asbestos, proper industrial safety measures should betaken.
153. Therepresentative ofSouth Africa recalled thatatthemeeting of14February, hisdelegation
hadassociated itself withconcerns expressed byCanada withrespect totheFrench banontheimportation
ofasbestosproducts.HewelcomedthejustificationreceivedfromtheEuropeanCommunities.However,
hisdelegation continued tohave questions andreservations regarding thejustification. HesupportedG/TBT/W/52
Page 28
theviews expressed byCanada andColombia andrequested theFrench authorities toconsider imposing
lesstrade-restrictive measures.
154. Therepresentative ofMexico shared theconcerns raised byCanada, Colombia andSouth Africa
regarding theFrench banonasbestos andendorsed theposition thatsuch measures should bewithdrawn.
155. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthejustification provided byher
delegation concerning theFrench banonasbestos haddemonstrated thatthelegislation inquestion
conformed with theprovisions oftheAgreement. Shesaidthatasimilar reply hadalsobeen recently
senttothedelegation ofColombia. Thejustification provided bytheFrench authorities wasbased
onthecarcinogenic characteristic ofthefibres, inparticular thefibre chrysotile. There wasnoexposure
threshold beyond which there would benoriskofasbestos linked disease. Thelegislation wasbased
onthefactthatcontrolled useofasbestos wasnotpossible, particularly inprofessions other thanasbestos
using professions where people concerned were dangerously exposed toasbestos intermittently. The
banwasbased ontheprecautionary principle thatwasconsidered possible toeliminate theexposure
riskwithrespect toasbestos. Sherequested delegations whohadtaken thefloor onthesubject toprovide
information regarding thequantity ofasbestos produced andused intheir country andthequantity which
wasexported.
156. Therepresentative ofCanada drew attention toafailure bytheEuropean Communities tonotify
technical regulations relating togenetically-modified organisms (GMOs). Henoted thatboth theNovel
Foods regulation (EC258/97) andtheAmendment totheDirective ontheDeliberate Release ofGMOs
(EC90/220) hadbeen implemented without notification under Article 2.9.2 oftheAgreement. The
Novel Foods Regulation specified therules fortheapproval andlabelling ofgenetically altered food
imports attheEuropean Union level. Labelling offood oringredients asgenetically altered would
thus bemandatory ifitwasconsidered tobesignificantly different from conventional food orfood
ingredients. TheAmendment totheDirective specified thatproducts containing GMOs would have
tobeidentified assuch ontheir packaging. While hisdelegation hadbeen having bilateral discussions
with theEuropean Commission onthemandatory technical regulations, henoted thatthose technical
regulations were covered bytheAgreement andsubject toitsdisciplines. Heasked theEuropean
Communities when those regulations would benotified.
157. Therepresentative oftheUnited States associated herdelegation with thecomments made by
Canada.
158. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities replying totheCanadian question, noted that
therelevant notifications had been made inTBT/Notif.92.355 (12November 1992) and in
G/TBT/Notif.97.151 (21April 1997) onRegulation EC258/97 adopted inJanuary 1997 concerning
thelabelling offood products produced from genetically modified soya andmaize.
159. Shedrew attention toaThai billwhich hadbeen adopted inApril 1997 onthedisclosure of
ingredients incigarettes andcigars. Thebillrelated totheTobacco Control Actadopted in1995 which
wasinbreach oftheTBT Agreement. Shequestioned iftheThai regulation hadalready been published
andwould itbenotified under theAgreement. Shesaidthatsince thecontent oftheregulation was
notknown, herdelegation could notyetjudge whether itwasrelevant toother international agreements.
160. Sherecalledthatatthelastmeeting,herdelegationhadraisedconcernsabouttheIsraeliregulation
ontableware. Sheregretted thatnosatisfactory result hadbeen achieved since then.
161. Therepresentative ofThailand took noteofthestatement made bytheEuropean Communities
ontheThai cigarette billandsaidshewould refer itback totheauthorities concerned foranswers.G/TBT/W/52
Page 29
162. TheCommittee took note ofthestatements made.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
163. Therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theCommittee ofthework under wayinthe
UN/Economic Commission forEurope, Working Party onTechnical Harmonization andStandardization
Policies. Shenoted thatatitsMay 1997 Meeting, theWorking Group hadadopted, onanadhocbasis,
aproposedinter-governmentalagreementontechnicalharmonization.Itwouldbeconsideredforapproval
bytheCommittee forTrade, Industry andEnterprise Development atitsDecember 1997 meeting. The
purpose oftheAgreement wastoextend thecommitments undertaken byWTO Members under the
TBT Agreement toECE Member countries ofwhich approximately 50were notyetWTO Members.
SheunderstoodthatitwasnotintendedtohaveanyeffectontherightsandobligationsofWTOMembers.
Herdelegation wascurrently reviewing thedocument.
164. TheCommittee took note oftheStatement made.
165. TheCommittee agreed tohold thenext meetings oftheTBT Technical Working Group and
oftheCommittee back toback on2-3October. ThelastCommittee meeting of1997 would beheld
on12-13 November atwhich theCommittee would carry outitsFirst Triennial Review. Inaddition,
twoopen-ended informal meeting would beheldaround themiddle ofSeptember andtheendofOctober
fordiscussions oftheTriennial Review.