WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/W/224
7 July 2003
(03-3625)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:  English
THIRD TRIENNAL REVIEW
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
Submission by Egypt
Article 15.4 of the TBT agreement mandates the Committee to review, every three years, the
operation and implementation of the Agreement to ensure “mutual economic advantage and balanceof rights and obligations”.  Based on the results of the Second Triennial Review, and on the activities
of the TBT Committee, Egypt would like to make the following contribution to provide some
thoughts, with respect to the issues of conform ity assessment procedures (CAPs) and transparency,
within the framework of th e Third Triennial Review.
I. CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT
1. Article 5.2 outlines the main elements which Members shall ensure when implementing
procedures for assessment of conformity by central government bodies, and as stated in
Canada’s document, Annex 4 of the report of the 2
nd Triennial Review of the TBT Agreement
contains elaborated principles for the development of standards, guides and recommendations related
to conformity assessment.  Nevertheless, it is this delegation’s conviction that Article 5.2 shall besubject to review (without changing current balance of rights and obligations) with the aim to offering
its provisions more precision and determinati on, especially with respect to the following
terminologies:
(a) Expeditious completion of conformity assessment procedures;
(b) Limited information requirement;  and
(c) Equitable fees.
2. It is documented that conformity assessment requirements, to the extent that they are
redundant and excessively costly, can partially negate and reduce the benefits from international trade.
It should be noted, as well, that conformity assessment procedures are carried out either by the
regulatory authority of the country importing the product or by a public or private body operating on
its behalf.  This constitutes significant additional costs to firms selling in multiple markets insofar as
conformity assessment procedures differ from one country to the other, it is rightly mentioned indocument (G/TBT/W/209) submitted by Mexico that, while tariffs are being reduced, international
trade is being hampered by TBT measures that might not be in conformity with the Agreement.
3. In short, conformity assessment requirements can be a non-tariff barrier to trade if they lead
to:
- Increased product costs due to multiple testing and certification requirements for different
markets, sometimes for different  importers within the same market;  and
- Time and administrative delays.G/TBT/W/224
Page 2
4. Article 6.1.1 is all about establishing confidence in the continued reliability and technical
competence of the exporting Member’s conformity assessment bodies.  This Article, as well as
paragraph 26 of the report of the Second Triennial Review note the existence of different mechanisms
to facilitate acceptance or recognition of conformity assessment.  These include mechanisms of
significant importance to developing countries like; the use of accreditation to qualify conformityassessment bodies, and manufacturer’s/supplier’s declaration (SDoC).
A. A
CCREDITATION
5. The Canadian and New Zealand papers in documents G/TBT/W/210 and 211 respectively,
where mention has been made about the importance of accreditation activities, based on the use of
international standards, guides and recommendations, as a means of fostering greater harmonization
of conformity assessment practices and procedures.  Egypt agrees with Canada that a global
accreditation regime based on the principle of “one accreditation- accepted every where” would be aleeway to have reduced the time and costs associat ed with conformity assessment, and to build the
required confidence in the reliability of the exporting Member’s conformity assessment bodies.  We
encourage the trend towards the development of regional and international conformity assessment
systems which, in order to be effective, should be complemented by the following :
1. Importing country’s acceptance to rely on the exporting country’s accredited tests and
conformity assessment certificates with due regard and without prejudice to the special and
differential treatment allowed for developing countries under Article 12.4;
2. Guaranteed participation of all developing country Members in such arrangements and
systems.  Otherwise, those systems would render themselves void at least for this category ofcountries.
6. We welcome the New Zealand statement in paragraph 6, and we agree with them that
technical assistance is a necessity in this regard, and we look forward to cooperating with
New Zealand and international accreditation bodies whose experience in this field is quite substantial.
B. S
UPPLIER ’S DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY
7. We note the increasing importance that Members are offering for the SDoC as a less
burdensome and less costly method of providing a cl aim that a product or service meets a specific
standard or performance requirement.  Hence, an effective method that could be used by both
developed and developing country suppliers to minimi ze costs and ensure timely delivery of a product
to foreign markets, while meeting the specific regulatory, customer and market requirements.
8. CASCO (ISO committee for conformity assessment) has recognized the need for consistent
implementation of SDoC and has developed in 1996 a conformity ISO/IEC Guide 22 “General criteria
for suppliers’ declaration of conformity” which applies to goods, services and management systems,
and which (with the aim to increase SDoC value, us ability and understanding) has been recommended
for conversion to a ISO standard in 2000.  The pending ISO/IEC 17050 “General requirement for
supplier’s declaration of conformity” describes in more detail the elements of such a standard.Another ISO/IEC standard to recognize in th is connection is ISO/IEC 17049 which defines a
framework of supporting documentation to facilita te and increase confidence in SDoC.  These
standards are applicable to all sectors as they leave room for variations according to regulatory
regimes, products, systems, etc…
9. In light of the above, Egypt believes that the Triennial Review may have to consider the
value, usability and understanding of SDoC, especi ally with respect to suppliers from developing
countries.  Pending ISO standards could be good basis for our deliberations.  Also important, is toG/TBT/W/224
Page 3
explore means to enhance transparency of regulatory regimes applying SDoC.  The Committee may
then need to be regularly informed of:
(i) The regularly authorities which apply the scheme;
(ii) Beneficiary sectors, and reasons;
(iii) Beneficiary suppliers and their country of origin;
(iv) Surveillance control mechanism to ensu re that products comply with market
requirements;
(v) Incentives for suppliers to comply with market requirements;  and
(vi) Penalties for misleading declaration.
C. EQUIVALENCY OF STANDARDS AND TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
10. Egypt believes that equivalency shall be considered in a pragmatic manner;  that what really
maters is putting equivalence in practice;  and that equivalence is enhanced through cooperation
between regulatory authorities.  However, we sh all underscore that effective and targeted technical
assistance is one form of cooperation that developing countries need in order to gear their systems up
to levels where equivalence could be sustained.
II. TRANSPARENCY
While reviewing the TBT Agreement, and as far as transparency is concerned, full sympathy
shall be given to developing countries.
11. China’s document G/TBT/W/205 has rightly demonstrated that in the year 2002, most of the
developing countries (2/3 of WTO Members) have not submitted notifications to this Committee.This would mean that those either did not have a measure to notify, or else were not technically and/or
financially able to notify.  It is Egypt’s belief that the Review shall address this problem in a
pragmatic way, and shall try to raise developing countries’ regulatory practices to meet the
transparency obligation.  We are convinced, therefore, that technical assistance and capacity building
is a horizontal issue that relates to all TBT related provisions.
12. Another problem regarding the application of the transparency provision is with respect to the
comment period.  China’s analysis has shown that around 50 per cent of the notifications did not
allow for the full 60 days.  This is a series concern, especially if we add to it the reality that several
developing countries are lacking the adequate re sources to even comment within 60 days.  The
problem exaggerates especially for notifications indicating less than 60 days for a comment period.
Exporting countries receive those long after issuance or submission by the notifying Member.  The
Third Triennial Review shall address this problem with a view to making the comment period fullyavailable, with due regard given to problems facing developing countries.
13. We would also propose, while looking into this, that developed country Members implement
Article 10.5 outright (i.e. without having to receive a request from the developing exporting Member).
14. Another point to consider in the Review is th e extent to which Members are transparent with
regards to the implementation of Article 12 of the Agreement.  The Committee on SPS is doing agood job on a similar provision which could be considered here as well.G/TBT/W/224
Page 4
15. The proposal by Brazil (document G/TBT/W/214) to trace the status of notified documents is
worth noting as it facilitates the process of following changes of technical regulations and conformity
assessment procedures.
__________