RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/M/18
5 April 2000
(00-1382)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:  English
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 FEBRUARY 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Mohan KUMAR (India)
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade held its Nineteenth meeting on
25 February 2000.
2. The following agenda, contained in WTO/AIR/1240 was adopted:
Page
I. Requests for Observer Status in the Committee by the Office International
de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) and the International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) 2
II. Statements on Implementation and Administration of the Agreement 2
III. Fifth Annual Review of the Implementation and Operation of the  6
Agreement under Article 15.3
IV. Fifth Annual Review of the Code of  Good Practice for the Preparation,  6
Adoption and Application of Standards in Annex 3 of the Agreement
under the Ministerial Decision on Review of the ISO/IEC Information
Centre Publication (WTO TBT Standards Code Directory)
V. Technical Assistance  7VI. Preparation for the Second Triennial Review of the Operation and             10
Implementation of the TBT Agreement under Article 15.4
VII. Other Business       18G/TBT/M/18
Page 2
I. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV) AND THE INTERNATIONAL
LABORATORY ACCREDITATION COOPERATION (ILAC)
3. The Chairman indicated that more time was needed for informal consultations on the requests
for observer status by the OIV and ILAC.
4. The Committee agreed to return to the requests at its next meeting.
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
5. The representative of Thailand expressed concern regarding the proposed legislation by the
United States (US) to have the English name of the Country of Origin indelibly marked on imitation
jewellery (G/TBT/W/128).  He noted that the US Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS 7117) covered
imports of "imitation jewellery, of base metal, whether or not plated with precious metal", includingcontinuous length rope, curb, cable, chain and similar articles ... whether or not set with imitation
pearls or imitation gemstone, suitable for use in the manufacture of imitation jewellery.  The heading
also covered toy jewellery, religious articles, and plastic necklaces.
6. He recalled that in November 1999, the US Senate had passed a legislation with its primary
purpose to liberalize US trade with Africa.  The US House of Representatives had already passed itsown version of this legislation.  During the Senate debate on the bill, a new provision had been added
to require all costume jewellery (described above) entering the customs territory of the US to "have
the English name of the country of origin indelibly marked in a conspicuous place on such jewellery
by cutting, dye-sinking, engraving, stamping or some other permanent method to the same extent as
such marking is required for Native American-style jewellery under Section 13 4.4 3 of Title 19, Codeof Federal Regulations, as in effect 1 October 1998 ".
7. He noted that the proposed legislation had been amended at the request of the Senator from
Rhode Island in which the city of Providence was a center for the manufacturing of costume
jewellery.  He believed that this had been the request of the US industry in an effort to harass
importers and make them more expensive by requiring indelible marking on the products rather thanon the packaging.
8. He said that the American Retail Federation and individual US retailers had objected to this
proposed legislation, and as a result, the Senate Finance Committee had negotiated the compromise
language to require marking "to the same extent as such marking is required for Native
American-style jewellery under US Customs regula tions".  US Customs Regulations - 19 Code of
Federal Regulations section 134.43 (c)(2), required that native American-style jewellery be "indelibly
marked with the country of origin by cutting, dye-sinking, engraving, stamping or some other
permanent method.  The indelible marking must appear legibly on the clasp or in some other
conspicuous location, or alternatively, on a metal or plastic tag indelibly marked with the country of
origin and permanently attached to the article".
9. However, this regulation allowed for two exceptions.  First, under the US Code Section
1304(a)(3), the US Secretary of the Treasury (acting through the Customs Service) could prescriberegulations that authorize the exception of any article from the requirements of marking if such
article:  (i) is incapable of being marked;  (ii) ca nnot be marked prior to shipment to the United States
without injury;  (iii) cannot be marked prior to shipment to the United States, except at an expense
economically prohibitive of its importation;  or (iv) the marking of a container of such article will
reasonably indicate the origin of such article.G/TBT/M/18
Page 3
10. Second, under the Customs regulations governing native American-style jewellery, a
subsequent provision - 19 Code of Federal Regulations Section 134.43(c)(3), the following exception
was allowed:  if it was technically or commercia lly infeasible to mark in the manner specified in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, or in the case of a product from a NAFTA country (Canada or
Mexico), the article could be marked by means of a string tag or adhesive label securely affixed, orsome other similar method.  He understood that the Customs Service would grant such exceptions (to
allow alternate ways of showing country of origin) on ly if importers could show that it was physically
impossible or excessively expensive to mark the country of origin on the jewellery.
11. He raised concerns that if the provision became law, the US jewellery manufacturers
concerned would give pressure on the Customs Service to write implementing regulations
burdensome for importers, e.g. to require importers to show substantial evidence that indelible
marking on the jewellery was physically impossible or excessively expensive in order to takeadvantage of the exceptions.
12. It was likely that foreign jewellery manufacturers would have no basis upon which to ask for
the exceptions, and this would add cost to imported-jewellery.  Even manufacturers who could ask for
the exceptions would have to bear the expenses of petitioning the Customs Service to prove that they
qualified.  He believed that this unjustifiably imposed additional burden on foreign jewellerymanufacturers, despite the fact that there was no sign that the current marking practices were
insufficient or causing harm to the US industry.  He suspected that the proposed legislation was
designed to undermine foreign competition and raising prices to the US consumers.
13. He referred to Article 2.1 of the Agreement that "Members shall ensure that in respect of
technical regulations, products imported from the terr itory of any Member shall be accorded treatment
no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating
in any other country", and believed that the proposed legislation and its exceptions were inconsistent
with the provision regarding MFN treatment.
14. He drew attention to Article 2.2 that " Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not
prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles tointernational trade …".  In his view, the proposed legislation was inconsistent with the provision by
creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade.
15. He noted that under Article 2.9.2, Members would have the opportunity to comment on a
draft technical regulation before it entered into force.  He requested the US delegation to convey, as
soon as possible, Thailand's opposition to the authority concerned (including the House Ways and
Means Committee), and sought explanation and justification on the proposed legislation in writing.
16. The representative of Korea said that Korea was one of the major exporters of imitation
jewellery to the US.  He shared the concern raised by Thailand and sought information from the US.
17. The representative of Brazil drew attention to notification G/TBT/Notif.00/5 regarding a US
dolphin safe tuna labelling requirement, and raised concerns about the nature of the US Decision.  She
noted that the proposal made a distinction between dolphin safe tuna and no-dolphin safe tuna.
However, it was unclear whether the label requirement would be mandatory.  She sought details of thedraft, and recalled Brazil's position that eco-labelling should be applied on a voluntary basis,
otherwise it could result in trade barriers.  She proposed to discuss and analyse the issue of eco-
labelling in the Committee, since it could represen t a precedent to similar initiatives which could be
prejudicial to developing countries.
18. The representation of the United States said that she had not received any advance warning
about the issues raised by Thailand and Brazil concerning the marking of imitation jewellery andG/TBT/M/18
Page 4
labelling of dolphin safe tuna.  She noted that both measures had been notified, and believed that the
comments made were in response to the notifications.  The notification on imitation jewellery
marking was still open for comments.  Therefore, sh e believed it would be inappropriate for her to
provide a substantive reaction at the present meeting.  She took note of the concerns expressed, and
requested that the comments be made in writing, so that she could convey them back to her capital.
19. The representative of Brazil drew attention to notification G/TBT/Notif.99/578, and
expressed concern on the draft regulation of the European Communities (EC) that prohibited the sale
of certain toys made of soft PVC containing substances identified as phthalates.  She noted that the
decision was based on the technical report from the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity
and the Environment (SCTEE), setting revised margins of safety values for phthalates, such as di-
"isononyl" phthalate (DINP) and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).  However, the same report
recommended at its conclusion that additional studies be carried out in order to gain more insight.She believed that in light of the uncertainty demonstrated by the latest available data, further research
should be carried out in order to evaluate the associated risk.  She concluded that the EC lacked
substantial scientific evidence to justify such an extreme measure as a total prohibition of articles
containing phthalates.  If the objective of the measure was to ensure high level protection of child
health as a matter of urgency, there should be stronger scientific evidence of the harm that could causeto children.
20. She noted that according to the SCTEE report, not all phthalates had the same effect on
human health.  There were differences e.g., in respect to the degree of exposure between DINP and
DEHP phthalates, and the latter was also banned in  Brazil.  Furthermore, it appeared from another
SCTEE report dated September 1999, that there was no certainty as to the risks associated with certainmaterial used as a substitute for phthalates.  She believed that the EC Decision to ban phthalates could
have been made in a hasty manner, and questioned if the requirement under Article 2.2 that "Members
shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the
effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade" had been taken into account.
21. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that Hong Kong, China was a major exporter of
toys, and associated his delegation with the concern raised by Brazil.  While he respected the right of
Members to adopt technical regulations for legitimate objectives (i.e. the protection of human health
and safety), he was also mindful of the obligations under Article 2.2 that regulations should not create
unnecessary obstacles to trade and that relevant scientific and technical information be considered in
assessing risk.  He sought further information from the EC, including on the points stated in
G/TBT/Notif.99/578 that "the Decision has a validity of three months and is renewable" and "the
Decision is meant to provide immediate protection … for as long as the decision-making processconcerning the broader harmonized measures is complete".
22. The representative of Canada recalled that at the last two meetings, his delegation had raised
questions with respect to draft European Communities  Directives related to waste from electric and
electronic equipments, and nickel cadmium batteries and accumulators.  He informed the Committee
that since then, his Government had consulted di rectly with the EC, requesting the EC Director
General of Environment to furnish evidence on a scientific basis to justify the prescriptive measures
provided for in the Directives.  He regretted that no information had yet been provided.
23. He echoed the concern raised by Brazil related to the way in which the EC had used their own
scientific recommendations to justify bans on phthalates.  He believed that these bans could not be
justified in terms of the advice from the EC's own scientific community.
24. The representative of Japan shared Canada's concern regarding the EC draft Directive on
waste electric and electronic equipments, and waste batteries.  While he agreed to the objective of
preserving the environment, he was of the view that the draft regulation was unnecessarilyG/TBT/M/18
Page 5
burdensome and could create trade barriers.  He raised doubt as to its consistency with the
TBT Agreement.  He noted that the draft regulation retroactively obliged firms to recollect waste
electric and electronic products sold in the past, and would impose uncertainty to the industry.  His
government would monitor the situation closely, an d urged the EC to handle the issue adequately.
25. The representative of Mexico expressed interest in the issues raised by Brazil and Canada,
and sought further information from the EC.
26. The representative of Egypt raised objection to the EC prohibition on imported heavy metals,
especially non-ferrous metals.  She noted that there was no risk assessment done regarding this issue.
27. The representative of the United States associated her delegation with the comments made by
Canada and Japan regarding the EC draft Directive on waste and the proposed ban on the use of
cadmium in batteries.  She recalled that she had expressed relevant concerns at previous meetings.
She urged the EC to take into consideration the comments made, and that any eventual draft would be
notified and in consistence with the obligations under the Agreement.
28. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the issue of phthalates
(substances to soften PVC used in toy products) had been in existence for some time.  In 1998, the EC
had gathered scientific evidence that there was a high health risk from toys and child care articles
containing certain phthalates intended to be placed in the mouth of young children under the age ofthree.  The scientific evidence had expressed some concerns on the most commonly used phthalates
DINP and serious concerns on DEHP.  On the basi s of this evidence, the EC had examined two
approaches to reduce the risks to children from phthalates.  One was to establish limits for migration
of phthalates from toys, and the second was to ban the use of phthalates in toys.  The first approach
required testing methods to ensure compliance.  The testing methods developed had not been foundsufficiently good for regulatory purposes.  That was why the present draft EC regulation adopted the
approach of a ban and stipulated that certain phthalates would not be used in toys and certain child
care articles.
29. He explained that concerning the procedural developments, the EC was going ahead with an
amendment to EC Directive 76769 which would introduce a ban on a long-term basis unless newscientific evidence was gathered.  As the EC procedures took long time to come into effect,
simultaneously short-term measures were taken to introduce a ban.  Under the product safety
Directive 9259, Member States were required to take temporary measures to implement the
prohibition.  He said that he would transmit the comments made to his authorities.
30. Referring to the draft Directive on waste collection requirements for electrical and electronic
equipment, he said that it was in the process of becoming a proposal.  The issue of how to deal with
waste batteries concerned industries, and his authorities were still elaborating on a proposal on how todeal with this issue.  He would report back to his capital on the concerns expressed.
31. He drew attention to document G/TBT/W/116 co ncerning a Japanese legislation on fishing
vessels and its implications to trade on commercial marine engines.  He said that bilateral discussions
had been taken place.  However, he requested the Japanese delegation for an update on the matter, as
it was still an issue which concerned his government.  He believed that the legislation, as it stood,discriminated against foreign fishery engines and constituted trade barriers.
32. He drew attention to an Egyptian Regulation No. 252593 on leather footwear and an
additional Ministerial Decree No. 34399 (issued in July 1999 and entered into force in August).  He
noted that the Decree imposed national standards on the certification of the hide of footwear.  He said
that these requirements were not based on international standards, and were not possible for producersto meet.G/TBT/M/18
Page 6
33. The representative of Japan said that his Government was of the view that the change of
calculation methods of engine size allowed for fishing vessels did not have significant effects on
trade, and was not an issue that required notification under the Agreement.  He informed the
Committee that his authorities had provided explanati ons to the EC during bilateral consultations.  A
study group was established to review the regulation as of March 2000 with participation from thefishing industry, domestic and foreign engine manufacturing industries.  He noted that the regulation
should be evaluated from the viewpoint of reforming the fishing industry regulations.
34. The representative of Egypt stated that it was the first time that she heard any problems
related to the Decree on leather footwear.  In Egypt, as a general principle, any decree issued tended
to protect Egyptian consumers, prevent smuggling, protect suppliers from counterfeiting or
commercial fraud.  She noted the concerns made, would transmit them back to her capital, and they
would be addressed either bilaterally or at the next meeting.
35. She raised concern about the EC Regulation 881/98 on Traditional Terms, and believed that it
could pose barriers to trade.  She suggested that in stead of the utilisation of traditional terms, it could
be easily substituted with registered trademarks to protect consumers.
36. Referring to biologically treated products, she stated that her government believed that
labelling could be a good solution to provide information defining that a product was biologicallytreated, so as to ensure consumers' interests.
37. The Committee took note of the statements made.
III. FIFTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF
THE AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.3
38. The Committee concluded its Fifth Annual Review on the basis of the background
documentation contained in G/TBT/8.
IV. FIFTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR THE
PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OF STANDARDS IN ANNEX 3 OF THE
AGREEMENT UNDER THE MINISTERIAL DECISION ON REVIEW OF THE ISO/IEC
INFORMATION CENTRE PUBLICATION (WTO TBT STANDARDS CODE DIRECTORY– FIFTH EDITION 2000)
39. The Chairman drew attention to document s G/TBT/CS/1/Add.4, G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.6 and the
Fifth Edition of the WTO TBT Standards Code Directory prepared by the ISO/IEC Information
Centre, containing information received according to paragraphs C and J of the Code of Good
Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards.  He informed the Committee that
in 1999, 9 standardising bodies from 5 Members had accepted the Code of Good Practice, and up until
the end of 1999, 115 standardizing bodies from 79 Members had accepted the Code.
40. He stated that in relation to the Code of G ood Practice, the Secretariat had been informed by
the ISO that in addition to the WTO TBT Standards Code Directory, information concerning
notifications made by standardizing bodies under paragraph J would be published and updated
regularly on a new section of the ISO Online web-site called Standards and World Trade
("http://www.iso.ch/wtotbt/wtotbt.htm").
41. The Committee concluded its Fifth Annual Review of the Code of Good Practice for the
Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards, and  took note of the statements made.G/TBT/M/18
Page 7
V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
42. The Chairman recalled that at the First Trie nnial Review of the Agreement (G/TBT/5), the
Committee had held discussions on technical assistance and special and differential treatment.  The
Committee had noted that certain Members, especially developing country Members, encountered
difficulties in the implementation and operation of the Agreement.  Technical assistance should beprovided to requesting Members, particularly least developed country Members, on the preparation of
technical regulations, the establishment of national standardizing bodies, regulatory bodies, or bodies
for assessment of conformity, the methods by which technical regulations of other Members could
best be met, the participation of such Members in the international standardizing bodies, and the
access to systems for conformity assessment, with a vi ew to increase the overall effectiveness of the
TBT Agreement.
43. The Committee had noted that technical assistance activities of the WTO should be
coordinated with other international and intergovernmental organizations.  In this respect, special
attention should be given to the development of human and institutional resources, in particular, with
respect to conformity assessment procedures.
44. Regarding special and differential treatment, the Committee had agreed to consider including
in its work programme, which would be review ed during the Second Triennial Review of the
Agreement, the matter of the use of measures to engender capacity building in developing country
Members, including the consideration of measures relevant to transfer of technology to these
countries, for the purpose of preparation and adoption of technical regulations, standards or
conformity assessment procedures, taking into account their special development, financial and trade
needs.
45. In order to enhance the implementation of Article 11, the Committee had agreed to invite
Members to exchange information regarding th e implementation of the provision, including to
communicate to the Committee annually any information concerning their national and regional
technical assistance programmes.  Members that required technical assistance had been invited to
inform the Committee of any difficulties they encountered in the implementation and operation of theAgreement and the kind of technical assistance they would need. Other Members had been invited to
contribute to the technical assistance process by sharing their experience in the implementation and
operation of the Agreement.
46. In order to follow up what had been discussed and agreed by the Committee at the First
Triennial Review, and to promote information exchange , and to facilitate discussion in the lead-up to
the Second Triennial Review on technical assistance, he proposed that a WTO Workshop on
Technical Assistance and Special and Differential Treatment in the context of the TBT Agreement beorganized this year, just before, or if not, just after the summer break.
47. The Workshop would provide the opportunity for Members that required technical assistance
to inform other Members and relevant organizations any difficulties they encountered in the
implementation and operation of the Agreement, and the kind of technical assistance they would need.
At the same time, Members and international organizations which provided technical assistance in theTBT area could make use of this occasion to communicate with the Committee any information
concerning their technical assistance programmes.  The objective was to help better targeting
technical assistance, avoid duplication and promote further cooperation and coordination among
donor Members and organizations aimed at developing efficient and effective technical assistance
programmes on the various areas related to the Agreement.
48. In order to facilitate the organization of the Workshop and aiming at obtaining a good result,
he proposed that a questionnaire would be circulated to invite Members, in particular developingG/TBT/M/18
Page 8
country Members, to identify difficulties they encountered in the implementation and operation of the
Agreement and to specify the kind of technical assistance they would need.
49. He proposed to invite speakers from both developed and developing country Members of
different regions and relevant organizations.  Topics of the presentations could be focusing on
problems and needs with respect to the implementation and operation of the Agreement by developingcountry Members, in particular the least-developed country Members, and their participation in
international standardizing bodies, access to systems for conformity assessment, development of
human and institutional resources and other capacity building issues.
50. He suggested that a draft programme of the Workshop be prepared by the Secretariat, taking
into account discussions held at the First Triennial Review, meetings, workshop and symposium,
relevant submissions by Members since the First Review and the information obtained from the
questionnaire.  The draft programme would be circulated to delegations for comments and befinalized by the end of April, therefore enough ti me would be provided for the preparation of the
Workshop.  He invited Members who wished to nominate speakers at the Workshop to make
presentations on the various topics to contact him or the Secretariat before mid-April.  In order to
have better participation of developing country Members and to finance speakers from these
Members, he sought assistance from delegations that could have the possibility to provide funding.
51. The representative of Chile welcomed the initiative of the Chairman.  He invited developed
country Members which had a system in place for the implementation and administration of the
Agreement to inform the Committee of the work they had been through.  He believed that would be a
useful way of technical assistance.
52. The Chairman supported the view expressed by Chile, and said that this would be one of the
objectives of the Workshop - to share information.
53. The representative of Canada welcomed the Chairman's initiative.  However, he believed that
the questionnaire for the Workshop did not need to be complex.  One or two comprehensive questions
outlining the requirements for technical assistance and the problems faced in implementing the
Agreement would be sufficient.  In this regard, he looked forward to receiving information from
Members, particularly developing country Members, that had raised concerns during the preparation
of Seattle Ministerial Conference about the problems of participation in international standardization
bodies.  He noted that there might have been a similar survey done by the World Bank, and invited the
Bank to make available the information to the Committee at the Workshop.
54. The representative of Panama welcomed the initiative of the Workshop, and said that at the
regional level, the standardizing bodies in her region were engaged in a formal dialogue, and could
contribute to the Workshop.  They had identified difficulties regarding consistency in the preparation
and acceptance of standards used at the regional level.  She requested developed country Members to
support developing countries by transfer of knowledge and carrying out workshops.
55. The representative of the European Communities supported the Chairman's initiative.  He
reiterated his delegation's desire to promote the transparency of technical assistance, and believed that
it would be useful to identify gaps or duplication, and to know what was planned.  The overallobjective would be to have a picture on the kind of framework for technical assistance by the end of
the Second Triennial Review.
56. The representative of Egypt believed that the kind of technical assistance beneficiary to
developing countries should exceed the usual form of lecture, data assembling, preparation and
dissemination of reports, and should take the form of positive assistance granted to help implementingthe agreement.  It should be tackled in an effective way so that developing countries could positivelyG/TBT/M/18
Page 9
achieved the utmost benefit from the implementation of Agreement, including in the field of making
use of electronic means for information exchange a nd for the purpose of participating in international
standards preparation, establishing conformity assessment systems according to the international
requirements, building the mechanisms for technical regulations setting, and sound infrastructure as
well as active enquiry points.  To this end, a criterion should be set for the detection of the efficiencyof technical assistance granted and the results achieved.  It would be appropriate that such a criterion
could take the form of practicable executive programmes.
57. The representative of the United States welcomed the Chairman's initiative, and found the
Egyptian statement interesting in terms of the possible topics to be addressed.  She supported
Canada's view that the questionnaire should not be a detailed survey which might prejudge the
outcome of the Workshop.
58. The Chairman assured that the survey would be to get a sense of the actual difficulties,
problems and issues that confronted developing countries, and in particular the least developed
countries.  The questionnaire could provoke response, specially from the less advantageous countries
which did not have missions based in Geneva.
59. The representative of Brazil associated herself with the previous speakers in support of the
Workshop.  She shared the view that it was important to identify the needs and avoid duplications of
technical assistance carried out by different or ganizations, such as the World Bank or UNCTAD.
60. The representative of South Africa welcomed the initiative to organize the Workshop.  He
believed that in general, technical assistance should be integrated into the activities of Members in the
regional context, as trading within a region was as important as trading in the global market.
61. The representative of Nigeria welcomed the Workshop and hoped that it would assist his
country to implement the Agreement.  He associated himself with the Egyptian statement.
62. The representative of Australia supported the proposal by the Chairman.
63. The representative of Mexico welcomed the Chairmen's proposal, but warned that the
questionnaire should not be a reason for a delay of the Workshop.
64. The representative of ISO said that ISO had a substantial technical assistance programme in
coordination with its Committee of Developing Countries.  ISO was ready to provide the relevant
information, cooperate with the WTO Secretariat, and participate in the Workshop.
65. The representative of the World Bank recalled that the World Bank, IMF and WTO had
cooperative arrangements, including the coherence agreement of the 1994 Ministerial Meeting of
Marrakesh.  He said that the World Bank had started to identify, in the area of standards, the technical
barriers to trade.  He believed that the new work programme at the World Bank (as contained in
G/TBT/W/130) could be of use to the Committee as it proceeded with the Second Triennial Reviewand the Workshop.
66. The Committee agreed to hold a "Workshop on Technical Assistance and Special and
Differential Treatment in the context of the TBT Agreement".  A questionnaire would be sent out for
Members to provide information concerning any difficulties they encounter in the implementation and
operation of the Agreement, as well as the kind of technical assistance they might need.
67. The Chairman drew attention to Article 10.6, and informed the Committee that following the
discussions held at the last meeting, the Secretar iat had undertaken action to further the implementation
of the provision, and especially to draw the atten tion of developing country  Members to notificationsG/TBT/M/18
Page 10
related to products of particular interest to them.  A document G/TBT/W/ 124 had been circulated
inviting developing country Members to provide to  the Secretariat with information concerning the
products of particular interest to them and the electronic mail addresses of their authorities designated
to receive the notifications.  He reminded delegations to provide such information in order that the
Secretariat could carry out its task.
68. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VI. PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE OPERATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.4
69. The Chairman drew attention to Article 15.4 which stated that "Not later than the end of the
third year from the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement and at the end of each three-year
period thereafter, the Committee shall review the operation and implementation of this Agreement,
including the provisions relating to transparency, wi th a view to recommending an adjustment of the
rights and obligations of this Agreement where necessary to ensure mutual economic advantage and
balance of rights and obligations, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 12.  Having regard,
inter alia , to the experience gained in the implemen tation of the Agreement, the Committee shall,
where appropriate, submit proposals for amendments to the text of this Agreement to the Council for
Trade in Goods".
70. He recalled that the First Triennial Review carried out at the end of 1997 had provided the
first opportunity to review the operation and implementation of the Agreement.  The Committee had
examined the status of implementation by Members and assessed the extent to which the operation of
the Agreement facilitated trade in all Members.  The Committee had adopted a number of decisions,
recommendations and arrangements aimed at better  operation and implementation of the Agreement
(G/TBT/5).  Since then, the Committee had managed to proceed with certain activities agreed and
continued discussions on the elements to be included in the Review.  Twenty-five papers had been
submitted by delegations containing national experience, viewpoints, and specific proposals in
different areas.  A stocktaking paper had been prepared by the Secretariat to facilitate discussions
(G/TBT/SPEC/11 and Add.1).
71. He noted that the Committee was mandated to conduct the Second Triennial Review before
the end of 2000.  He invited delegations who wished to submit further papers or proposals for the
Review to do so as soon as possible, so that enough time would be provided for discussions.
72. He recalled that an informal meeting of the Committee was held on 25 January 2000 in order
to take stock of the work programme undertaken by the Committee since the First Triennial Review
and to share views with Members on the conduct of the Second Triennial Review.  At that meeting, a
number of Members had suggested that the Second Triennial Review should be a continuation of theFirst one, and indicated certain issues they thought were important to be included.  These issues
included:  (i) implementation of the Agreement;  (ii) notifications and procedures for information
exchange;  (iii) international standards and inte rnational standardizing bodies; (iv) conformity
assessment procedures;  (v) good regulatory practice;  (vi) technical assistance; and (vii) special and
differential treatment.  He emphasized that the issues listed were only from his observations at themeeting, and sufficient opportunity would be pr ovided for consultation on any other issues that
delegations might like to raise related to the operation and implementation of the TBT Agreement.
73. The representative of Egypt said that the scope of the list was wide.  She would transmit it to
her capital and might come back with some ideas.
74. The representative of Chile asked if the issue on good regulatory practice related to technical
regulations only.  In principle, he did not find it appropriate for the Committee to discuss all theG/TBT/M/18
Page 11
different regulations within a country.  Some regulations dealt with administrative matters, services
and medical services, etc. that were not covered under the TBT Agreement.  The Committee should
limit itself to the discussions on matters under the Agreement.
75. The representative of Mexico associated himself with the previous speaker, and said that it
was important to clarify the concept of good regulatory practice.  He believed that Article 15.4 stated
clearly the scope of the Triennial Review and that the Committee should confine itself within it.
76. The representative of the European Communities recalled that good regulatory practice was a
proposal of his delegation.  He believed that there was the possibility within the Agreement to
promote regulatory best practice.  The Second Trienni al Review could be an opportunity to assess the
feasibility to develop explicit guidelines on that.  The Committee could explore the issue on a step by
step basis.  As a first step, he proposed that the essential elements for regulatory best practice be
presented and discussed, then sectors or product categories be identified where technical regulationscould be limited to certain minimum level of requirements.
77. The representative of New Zealand believed that there could be issues among the topics
which could not be identified imme diately.  He gave the example that when discussing international
standardization, other relevant issues could be taken into account.  He recalled the New Zealand paper
(G/TBT/W/88) on the concept of equivalency and how it could be applied to voluntary standards asan interim measure where international standards did not exist.  The issue had received interest from
delegations, including Thailand which had made specific comments.  He said that he would come
back to the subject, and wished that it could be advanced as part of the Second Triennial Review.
78. The Chairman reiterated that the points he had identified did not constitute a closed list.  He
did not believe that the Committee had to determine a definite list at this stage, and believed that the
concept of equivalency of standards could be included as an additional point to the list.
79. The representative of the European Communities expressed the EC's wish to discuss the issue
of labelling within the framework of the Review.  He said that the provisions on labelling in the
Agreement were limited, and recalled that at previous meetings, labelling issues had been raised
frequently.  His delegation recognized that there were problems concerning labelling, and believedthat it would be useful to have a clearer guidance on the level of information necessary for consumers.
He said that a paper would be available before the next meeting to make the EC position clearer.
80. The representative of Latvia agreed with the evolving list proposed by the Chairman, and that
the discussions on good regulatory practice should be related to technical regulations under the
Agreement.  She supported the EC's view that labelling should be an issue to look into, because the
problem of labelling was crucial for different sectors and different products, especially foodstuffs.
81. The representative of Mexico noted that the list suggested by the Chairman was an indicative
list and was not something that the Committee had to agree upon.  He believed that it was necessary
to see how discussions on the different issues progre ss.  Some subjects might interest some countries,
and others might interest other countries.  Referring to the EC's proposal on labelling, he recalled his
delegation's position which was well known.
82. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with the comments made by New
Zealand on the subject of equivalency.  He noted that the EC's proposals on good regulatory practice
and labelling contained two complex subjects.  In order to have consideration domestically and
productive discussions in the Committee, it was necessary to receive from the EC descriptions on the
issues and what the EC wanted to see as the outcome.
83. The representative of Chile agreed that more information was needed on the EC proposals.G/TBT/M/18
Page 12
84. The representative of Japan supported the list presented by the Chairman, and the fact that it
was left open.  He invited the EC to provide information on the content, intention of its proposal on
labelling and which direction the EC wished to take the discussion, so that comments could be made.
85. The Chairman invited the EC to submit papers on its proposals for the consideration of the
Committee.  He suggested that the papers could take into account of the comments made.
86. The representative of Hong Kong, China noted that the parameters of the Triennial Review
were clear in Article 15.4, which were to review the operation and implementation of the Agreement.
He agreed with the Chairman that the list of it ems was no more than an illustrative list to assist
structuring discussions.  He believed that the list should be open ended, and flexibility was required.
He expected the discussions to evolve over time dr iven by submissions and proposals.  At the present
stage, his delegation had an open mind, and he found the additional items raised by New Zealand and
the EC interesting.
87. The representative of Malaysia agreed broadly with the areas outlined by the Chairman, and
that the list was not a closed one.  He believed that after the summer break, discussions would become
more matured.  He said that the process of the Review should be Member driven.  Submissions and
proposals would be made by Members, including ASEAN country Members.  He was interested to
look into the proposal by the EC on labelling.  However, he recalled his delegation's position on theissue.  He noted that Article 15.4 did not mention the extension of the scope of the Agreement.  He
reiterated that his delegation did not wish to see any expansion of the scope of the Agreement into
areas where the WTO did not have jurisprudence or jurisdiction.
88. The representative of the European Communities clarified that the EC proposals did not carry
the intention to expand the scope of the Agreement.  The aims were to ensure the effective application
of the Agreement and to overcome problems in its operation, and they were in line with Article 15.4.
He agreed that the Committee had to be flexible at this stage.  Initially, the Committee should look at
the various issues raised by delegations, and perhaps later in the year, the subject matters had to be
narrowed down because of time constraints.
89. The representative of Australia supported the points on the indicative list, and stated her
delegation's intention to contribute actively to the Review.  She suggested that the Committee needed
to look into a programme which could be achieved within this year, and be precise in its collective
expectations for the Review.  If complex and contentious issues were put on the agenda, the
Committee should identify the key elements, rather th an allowing the complicated distractions to hold
up progress.  It was important for the Committee to reach agreement on a realistic set of issues that
could yield to resolve problems and reaffirm the effectiveness of the WTO system.  She did not
expect that the Review could resolve all the issues and problems faced by Members.  However, shebelieved that the Agreement was generally working effectively, but there was scope for enhancing its
operation and implementation within the framework of the Agreement as it stood.
90. The representative of the United States supported the indicative list, and that the Second
Triennial Review would be a continuation of the first one.  She recalled that a good report was issued
at the conclusion of the First Review which had assisted Members to start off with a commonunderstanding of the issues that had been identified at that time.  A number of papers had been
submitted since then, and they were still on the table for consideration.  Since these paper might
linked to different categories of the indicative list , she wondered how discussions would be organized
so that Members could know when these papers would be discussed.
91. The Chairman understood that it was necessary to be flexible in the Committee.  If a
delegation wished to submit a paper on an issue that it considered relevant and if it facilitatedG/TBT/M/18
Page 13
discussions, it should be welcomed.  He sugge sted that document G/TBT/SPEC/11 and Add.1 which
compiled all the papers submitted could help organizing discussions.
92. The Committee took note of the statements made.
A. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
93. The Chairman proposed to start discussions on the implementation of the Agreement. He
drew attention to Article 15.2 which provided that "Each Member shall, promptly after the date on
which the Agreement enters into force for it, inform the Committee of measures in existence or taken
to ensure the implementation and administration of the Agreement" and document G/TBT/1/Rev.6
which contained the relevant decisions taken by the Committee concerning the contents of these
written statements.  He informed the Committee that up until present, 73 Members had submitted their
statements and 62 Members had not yet submitted theirs.  He recalled that at the First Triennial
Review, it had been noted that certain Members might face difficulties in providing the informationand needed clarification of the notification requirements.  Certain Members might also encounter
difficulties and problems regarding the measures and arrangements to ensure the implementation and
administration of the Agreement by relevant aut horities and non-governmental standardizing bodies.
The Committee had agreed that an exchange of information and experience among Members would
help to identify such problems and difficulties, and provide assistance to those Members seeking it.
94. In order to ensure the submission of statements, the Committee had agreed to the following:
(a) Members who had not submitted such information were expected to do so without further delay;
and that they were invited to indicate any difficul ties and needs in this respect, so that technical
assistance as appropriate could be provided; and (b) for the purpose of information exchange,
Members were invited, on a voluntary basis, to make oral presentations to further elaborate on thearrangements they had in place to achieve an effective implementation and administration of the
provisions of the Agreement.  This exercise would be a useful means of sharing information with
respect to good practices and in meeting the needs of those Members that could be seeking assistance.
He regretted that so far, no submissions had been received in this respect.
95. The representative of the European Communities was concerned about the fact that only
around half of the Members had informed the Committee of their measures to implement the
Agreement.  He believed that progress in that area was vital, and the reasons why a large number of
Members had not managed to notify should be understood.  This was also related to the issues that
were addressed under technical assistance.
96. The Committee took note of the statements made.
B. NOTIFICATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE
97. Concerning notification procedures with respect to draft technical regulations and procedures
for assessment of conformity, the Chairman recalled  that at the First Triennial Review, the Committee
had reiterated the importance of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Agreement, the agreed
format and guidelines (G/TBT/1/Rev.6), and had stressed that timely notification at the drafting stage
was essential to ensure transparency.  The Committee had also stressed the importance that "Members
shall without discrimination, allow reasonable time for other Members to make comments in writing,discuss these comments upon request, and take these written comments and the results of these
discussions into account".  The Committee had agreed to examine any problems faced by developing
country Members in the implementation of the provisions regarding notification obligations so that
technical assistance could be provided as appropriate.G/TBT/M/18
Page 14
98. He noted that in 1999, 669 notifications were made, and the average comment period was
46.5 days (while the recommendation of the Committee was 60 days).  The periods provided were:
36 percent with less than 45 days;  25 percent with 45-59 days;  24 percent with 60 days or more;  and
15 percent with no specified or lapsed period.  While 5 percent of the notifications were made under
Articles 2.10 and 5.7 due to urgent problems.
99. He drew attention to documents G/TBT/W/84 and 93 (submissions by Thailand and India) on
notifications in which both had indicated the importance of cooperation and coordination of national
enquiry points.  He informed the Committee that up until present, 96 Members had provided
information on the establishment of their enquiry points and 39 Members had yet to provide such
information.  He urged these Members to provide the said information at an early stage.
100. The representative of Egypt drew attention to document G/TBT/W/117 submitted by Canada
on "Voluntary Service Standards for TBT Enquiry Points".  She said that her authorities had studied
the document, and considered the time-period of 24 to 48 hours as benchmarks/service standards a
very short periods, specially for countries which did not use electronic means of communication.
Even if Egypt was to reconsider the Canadian proposal, technical assistance would  have to be
provided to enquiry points in order that they could meet this target.
101. The representative of the European Comm unities noticed that the total number of
notifications had not increased in the last years.  However, the number of Members notifying had
increased, which he thought was a positive development.  He noted that there had been only a small
number of notifications originating from local government bodies, although notification obligations
for local government bodies existed.  As notification procedure was important, and that it was not
working as well as it could, he suggested that the Committee should make more periodic reviews onhow well the system worked, identify and address any problems.
102. He made the following proposals:  (i) regardin g information required to analyse notifications,
he found that in many cases, it was necessary to go through different procedures in order to obtain the
draft regulations.  He proposed that it would be appropriate if the draft regulation be automatically
sent with the notification to speed up the process.  He recognized that this could create problems for
the Secretariat, and the Committee should find ways to overcome the problems and not to overload
the Secretariat.  He suggested that the texts could be sent as far as possible in electronic form.
However, if a country desired to send them in paper form, that should also be feasible.
103. (ii) Regarding the comment periods, he proposed that the period of 60 days should be run
from the date on which the notification was issued by the Secretariat.  (iii) He believed that it was
important to provide information concerning the authorities responsible for notification procedures
and those dealing with comments made, particularly in cases where the enquiry point was notempowered to exercise these responsibilities.  He suggested that the names and addresses of the
competent authorities should be indicated either in the statements under Article 15.2 or on the
notifications.  It was important to minimize the number of authorities responsible for notification
procedures as stated under Articles 10.10 and10.11.
104. The Chairman requested the representative of the EC to make his proposals available in
writing for the circulation to Members.
105. The Committee took note of the statements made.
C. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
106. The representative of Egypt believed that as far as the application of international standards
was concerned, developing countries' benefit from such standards was minor and the process ofG/TBT/M/18
Page 15
adjusting the national standards to the international ones was usually difficult.  This could be due to
the following factors:  (i) the participation of developing countries throughout the various phases of
international standards setting was limited.  Thus these standards usually corresponded to the market
needs of developed countries, in particular with those which had participated actively in their setting;
(ii) some international standards specified certai n safety, health, environmental requirements which
were applied by developed countries.  Such requirements, as a result, accompanied financial and
technical consequences which were difficult for developing countries to meet.
107. She concluded that it was necessary to seek a wider participation for developing countries in
the field of international standards setting.  However, she could not accept new elements encompassed
in the Agreement which would impose obligations on developing country Members to participate in
the process of international standards setting, unless it was made clear what sort of technical
assistance would be provided to such countries fro m the standardizing bodies to ensure their effective
participation, and what form of financial assistance would be granted to such countries to be able to
achieve a reasonable participation.
108. The representative of Malaysia commented on the proposals by the EC, Japan and the US
relating to international standards (G/TBT/W/75 and Rev.1, G/TBT/W/87 and Rev.1 and
G/TBT/W/113 and 121).  He noted that the Japanese pr oposal required amending the text of the
Agreement so that the development of internati onal standards would encompass the principles of
fairness, openness, market reality and transparency.  He agreed with these four principles.  However, he
supported the Egyptian comments that the concerns  of developing countries and their effective
participation in the development of international sta ndards had to be taken into account.  This issue had
to be addressed and treated as important as the four  principles suggested in order to strike the right
balance.  He recalled that during the First Triennia l Review, similar comments had been made regarding
technical assistance and effective participation.  De spite what had been said, there was no major change
in the situation.  The Committee had to make the concerns of the developing countries known to
international standardizing bodies.  He believed that the WTO was in a position to inform international
standardization bodies on how they should conduct their work.
109. The Chairman noted the points raised by Malaysia, and invited other delegations that shared the
same views to contribute to the discussions at th e next meeting, and to inform the Committee on how
effective participation of devel oping countries could be ensured.
110. The representative of Japan welcomed the comments of Malaysia, and clarified that, leaving
aside the chance of amending the text of the Agreemen t, it was his delegation's intention to first discuss
the substance of the issues.  He agreed that dur ing the course of discussions, the participation of
developing countries should be dealt with.
111. The representative of Canada drew attention to ISO/IEC Guide 59, and suggested that it could
assist the Committee in its work with respect to  international standardization and international
standards.  He noted that there was a document TBT/W/187 prepared in June 1994 during the GATT
time comparing Guide 59 with the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and
Application of Standards (Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement).  He suggested that it could be re-issued orupdated for the use of the current Committee.
112. The representative of the ISO explained that ISO/IEC Guide 59  was published in 1994.  The
purpose was to ensure openness, transparency, effectiveness and an optimum degree of order in
world-wide standardization processes.  The c ode was voluntary and intended for use by any
standardizing body, whether governmental or non-governmental, at the international, regional,national or sub-national level.G/TBT/M/18
Page 16
113. The main difference between ISO/IEC Guide 59 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement was that
Guide 59 was intended for adoption by any standardization body which approved standards using
procedures based on principles of consensus, whereas the Annex 3 was open to acceptance by any
standardizing organization within the territories of WTO Members, including those which were not
using consensus principle.
114. In general terms, the requirements under Guide 59 and Annex 3 were the same.  However, the
requirements of Guide 59 were more generic, providing guidance for the procedures on standard
development, participation in the standard development process, as well as the coordination of
standardization activities in the global standardization system, but with less administrative details.  He
informed the Committee that Guide 59 had been accepted by ISO, IEC and (to a certain extend ITU)
members, which meant that ISO, IEC and their members had taken the commitment to follow the
principles stated in the Guide, but there was no formal administrative adherence procedure.
115. The Chairman requested the Secretariat to re-issue document TBT/W/187.
116. The representative of Latvia raised concern that within the ISO 134 membership, only 90
members receive copies of draft international standards.  As corresponding and subscriber members
did not receive the drafts (these figures also showed that not all WTO Members, and only limited
number of developing countries received these drafts), she believed that in reality, transparency andconsensus did not exist in the development of international standards.  She concluded that this was an
important issue, and there was a need to develop a coordination system that all WTO Members would
receive draft international standards and could revise them.  She believed that this problem could be
dealt with regionally, and that regional standardization bodies could realize a consensus regarding a
standard and later seek the global consensus.
117. The Chairman noted that the membership of the ISO and the WTO was not the same, which
created a certain element of disparity.
118. The representative of the ISO stated that any country was welcome to become an ISO
member, including all WTO Members.  There were three categories of membership in the ISO:
regular, correspondent and subscriber members, and countries were welcome to choose and changetheir categories, so that they could receive automatically all the draft international standards.
119. The Committee took note of the statements made, and agreed
 to request the Secretariat to
prepare two notes under its own responsibility, to facili tate discussions at the next meeting.  The first
note would be a factual side-by-side note comparing the proposals made by the US, EC and Japan
concerning the principles on international standardizing bodies and international standards.  The
second note would aim at identifying common elements of the three proposals, which could also serve
as a basis for consensus in the future.  It would be prepared based on the submissions taking intoaccount of the discussions made.
D. CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
120. The Chairman noted that issues under discussions concerning conformity assessment
procedures included:  the use of ISO/IEC Guides on conformity assessment;  suppliers declaration of
conformity;  autonomous recognition;  national treatment of conformity assessment bodies;  andmutual recognition agreements (G/TBT/W/63, 70, 79, 118, 121, G/TBT/SPEC/11 and Add.1).
Concrete proposals had been made by Australia and Japan (G/TBT/W/118 and 121).
121. The representative of Egypt noted the foll owing problems in the area of conformity
assessment procedures:  (i) the lack of sound established national accreditation bodies affected
negatively the conclusion of mutual recognition agreements.  Conformity assessment proceduresG/TBT/M/18
Page 17
varied from country to country (between developing and developed countries, and also amongst
developing countries), and as a result, products were subject to multiple testings, hampering
international trade flow and leading to financial and technical burdens, particularly for developing
countries,  (ii) conformity assessment systems in developed countries were sophisticated and
advanced, thus it was difficult for developing countries (with modest infrastructure, minimumtechnical experience and limited laboratories capacities) to apply them;  and (iii) developing country
economy relied mainly on small industries, and it was a financial burden or an unaffordable cost for
such industries to fulfil conformity assessment requirements.
122. She believed that the Agreement should not take on board any obligations concerning the
implementation of specific conformity assessment systems or procedures, except after defining the
assistance to be granted to developing countries to adjust such systems or procedures.  She noted the
relevant papers and proposals tabled, and said that experts from her capital might come and addressthem at the next meeting.
123. The representative of Canada drew attention to  ISO/IEC Guides 60-61.  He believed that there
was a need to look into the work of ISO/CASCO regarding the availability of voluntary standards, the
utility of these documents and their updating taking into account international trade and the interests
of the Committee.
124. The representative of the European Commun ities agreed that the ISO/IEC Guides were
useful, and noted that they were voluntary.  However, in many countries, they were used mandatorily
in regulations.  He believed that it was useful to link the Agreement more directly to the Guides, to
make it clear what they were there for, as well as to communicate more effectively to organizations
which developed them.
125. The representative of Japan supported the comments of Canada that it was useful to look at
ISO/IEC Guides 59, 60, and 61.  He noted that voluntary sectors were free in their business, on the
other hand, the Committee had the right to see whether their work could be used as tools to implement
the Agreement.
126. The representative of the United States noted that Members needed time to study the papers
submitted, particularly the non-paper (available at the meeting) prepared by Australia which contained
interesting concepts and different approaches that could facilitate the recognition of conformity
assessment results (i.e., suppliers' declaration, mutual recognition agreements and accreditation).  She
recalled that at the First Triennial Review, the Committee had noted the existence of a number of the
different approaches, and held discussions on ISO/IEC Guides.  Different Members had submitted
papers on their national experience.  She recognized that the area of conformity assessment was a
complex one, and believed that a number of the issues could be addressed at the Second TriennialReview.  She invited substantive discussions at the next meeting.
127. The representative of Mexico said that his delegation was interested in the subject of
conformity assessment.  He agreed with the US comments that more time was needed to examine the
proposals and substantive discussions could be held at the next meeting.
128. The representative of Chile sought clarification on how the Committee would move forward
with its preparation of the Second Triennial Review.
129. The representative of Canada suggested to hold  informal meetings back to back with formal
meetings.  He believed that the informal meeting this time had helped discussion to move forward.
130. The Chairman noted that the Committee had an indicative list of items that the Second
Triennial Review was expected to address.  He did not know whether the Committee would be able toG/TBT/M/18
Page 18
address all the items and bring all of them to a certain degree of maturity for decision-making by the
end the year.  In some areas there was a chance of greater progress than the others.  He gave the
example of the item on international standards on which the Secretariat would prepare two notes by
the middle of April.  He invited delegations to co nsider them, see how to move the process forward,
and hopefully there could be some kind of a decision by the end of the year.
131. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
132. The representative of the UN/ECE presented its project on a Global Model for Implementing
Good Regulatory Practice for the Preparation, Adoptio n and Application of Technical Regulations via
the Use of International Standards (G/TBT/W/129), and invited comments.
133. The representative of the United States believed that there was a fundamental difference
between what was foreseen under the TBT Agreement and what appeared to be proposed by the
UN/ECE.  She noted that the UN/ECE project related to international technical regulations, and thus
suggested a supra -national structure.  She noted that the TBT Agreement respected the sovereignty of
each Member, and suggested that the Committee might want to be careful with the UN/ECE project,
as it involved a different kind of undertaking.
134. The representative of the UN/ECE argued that the project did not aim at any supra -national
structure, and said that it might be necessary to ch ange the wording so it would not be in conflict with
the TBT Agreement.
135. The Committee took note of statements made.
136. The Chairman said that regarding election of officer, more time was needed for consultations
among Members, and the Committee would come back to this item at its next meeting.  He proposed
that the next meeting be held in the third week of May 2000, and indicated that informal meeting
might be held, if necessary, before that.
__________