RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/M/21
31 October 2000
(00-4563)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6 OCTOBER 2000
Chairman:  Mr. John ADANK (New Zealand)
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade held its twenty-second meeting on
6 October 2000.
2. The following agenda, contained in WTO/AIR/1390, was adopted:
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE
OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE
BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM) AND THE
GULF ORGANIZATION FOR INDUS TRIAL CONSULTI NG (GOIC)...........................2
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEM ENT ...................................................................................................................... ....2
III. PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 15.4 ................................................................................................................... .......6
IV. OTHER BUSINESS.............................................................................................................. ..15G/TBT/M/21
Page 2
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE BUREAU
INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM) AND THE GULF
ORGANIZATION FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSULTING (GOIC)
3. The Chairman indicated that more time was needed for informal consultations on these
requests (G/TBT/W/62, 135 and 141).
4. The Committee agreed to return to these requests at its next meeting.
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
5. The representative of Bulgaria said that his authorities had revised the Bulgarian statement on
the implementation and administration of the Ag reement under Article 15.2 (G/TBT/2/Add.32/Rev.1).
6. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN countries, reiterated
concerns over two proposed EC Directives on waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
and on the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (HSEEE).  She thanked
the European Communities (EC) for their reply to ASEAN on 14 September 2000.  However,
concerns over the impact of the Directives, particularly on small and medium enterprises (SMEs), had
not been alleviated.  A main concern related to the high costs involved.  According to EC estimates,total net costs of meeting collection and recycling requirements were in the range of
EURO 500-900 million a year.  Additional costs, such  as consultancy and overhead costs, amounted to
around EURO 100 million.  It was unclear to her how  a fair burden-sharing would be achieved and
who would bear the brunt of the costs, in particul ar start-up costs?  She wondered whether producers
were responsible for waste pick-up from designated  collection points and how the system would work
given the large number of producers?  She held that local authorities should continue to organize and
finance waste recovery and recycling.  These authorities had the expertise to manage large-scale
collection and recycling efforts.  Overseas suppliers and producers should be exempted from what was
mainly an internal affair.  She also wondered how to deal with producer responsibilities if companies
changed ownership or closed down.
7. Regarding the proposed HSEEE Directive, she cite d the EC's reply stating that replacement
technologies would be available only before the entry into force of the Directive.  However, it needed
to be known much earlier whether substitutes would be available at a reasonable cost.  Cost increases
for SMEs would be substantial, and five to ten years beyond the EC's deadline in 2008 would be
needed for transition.  Her delegation had asked the EC to take into account concerns of developing
countries in drafting these Directives.  In particular, procedures for the assessment of conformity with
the EC Directives ought to be as simple as possible.  It should be possible to perform conformityassessment in the country of export so as not to  incur additional costs.  Replacement technology
should be transferred at reasonable costs in accord ance with TRIPS principles.  In addition, the EC
Directives should not result in unfair advantages to European producers.
8. The representative of Canada indicated that he shared many of Malaysia's concerns with
respect to the EC Directive on WEEE.  His delegation supported the underlying objectives of the
proposed Directive, i.e. the prevention of waste from electrical and electronic equipment, increased
reuse, recycling and recovery of such waste and the reduction of the environmental risks associated
with its treatment and disposal.  He expressed concerns about the implementation of the Directive and
especially its impact on SMEs.  He also recalled that, in response to the EC's notification on
25 September 2000, Canada had provided comments and questions on specific articles of the draftDirective to the EC.G/TBT/M/21
Page 3
9. His delegation requested the EC to provide scientific studies on HSEEE demonstrating that
the intended measure was warranted.  He warned that the phase-out and ban of such materials in
electrical and electronic equipment might result in  negative environmental impacts by forcing the
adoption of substitutes that could have more detrimental environmental impacts than the substances
they replaced.  He expressed his concern that the approach considered by the Commission waspursued in the absence of a comprehensive and scientifically sound risk assessment.  Such an
approach, if implemented, would create unnecessary barriers to trade.  He questioned whether such
product bans were proportionate to any expected risks and whether such measures were not more
trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the objectives indicated in the proposal.
10. He also reiterated concerns over the EC's intent to ban the use of cadmium in batteries and
accumulators in the absence of a formal risk assessment.  This ban, if adopted, might create
unnecessary barriers to trade for manufacturers of electronic and electrical products relying onnickel-cadmium batteries as a power source.  He recalled that OECD member states had endorsed
recycling as the preferred method for dealing with associated environmental and health concerns.
11. The representative of Japan, while expressing sympathy for the EC's objectives to prevent
disposals of electrical and electronic equipment and to restrict the use of hazardous substances,
associated himself with the questions raised by Canada.  He said that the necessity and technicalfeasibility of bans on substances as well as technical recycling rates had to be verified for every type
of electrical and electronic equipment if restrictions were targeted at all electrical and electronic
equipment.  Japanese manufacturers, one of the main suppliers of electrical and electronic equipment
in Europe, should be consulted.  The above concerns also applied to the proposed Directive on
nickel-cadmium batteries and accumulators.
12. The representative of the United States (US) associated herself with the statements made by
ASEAN, Japan and Canada.  She requested that the reply received by ASEAN from the EC be made
available to other Members.  Her delegation wished to better understand the rationale for the proposed
measures and its relationship to the EC's environmen tal and health objectives, in order to assess their
consistency with international obligations.  She reca lled that the US was still waiting for information
from the EC on its risk assessments relating to the proposed substance bans and the safety of possible
substitutes.  She urged the EC, in the interest of transparency to respond to Members' inquiries, and to
ensure an environmentally beneficial and economically efficient approach.
13. The representative of Australia associated herself with the statements made by ASEAN,
Japan, Canada and the US, in particular regarding the absence of a detailed scientific and technical
justification for the measures, including the ban on substances used in batteries.  She also questioned
whether the measures proposed by the EC were the least trade restrictive type to achieve theirobjectives.  Australia had submitted comments to the EC, waiting for response.  She was also
interested in receiving any explanations provided to other Members.
14. The representative of Egypt associated herself with statements made by previous speakers
regarding the European Directives.  Information received by other Members should be circulated, as
requested by the US.
15. The representative of Venezuela associated himself with statements made by previous
speakers, in particular ASEAN.  The type of measure might affect the exports from developing
country Members and any information should be distributed to all Members.
16. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the EC had notified these draft
Directives early in the adoption process.  Notification had been made in July, the normal consultation
period of 60 days would end by the end of the month.  A number of requests for extending this period
had been made.  Given the importance of these projects he declared the EC's readiness to accept
further comments until the end of November.  He proposed to have more in-depth discussions and aG/TBT/M/21
Page 4
reply to technical comments at the next meeting after a consolidation of the questions.  He added that
discussions would continue in the European Parliame nt and the Council for the next two years, thus,
more time was still available for discussions in the TBT Committee.
17. He responded to some of the issues raised:  (i) he advised Members that a scientific
evaluation was contained in the memorandum attached to Annex IV of the proposed WEEE Directiveand invited comments from Members on whether or not they found this assessment to be sufficient;
(ii) he explained that components of electrical and electronic equipment could be exempted from the
substitution requirements if negative environment or health impacts caused by substitution were likely
to outweigh environmental benefits;  and (iii) he invited more detailed explanations of alleged
discrimination as the EC's assessment indicated that this would not be the case.  While costs were
implied by the draft legislation, these were not discriminatory.
18. Responding to Canada's concern about batteries, he explained that it referred to a document
which was not yet a draft Directive.  This document was still under discussion within the European
Commission.  It was too early to notify as there was not yet a common position within the
Commission itself.  For reasons of transparency, how ever, the text had been circulated outside the
Commission.  Comments received at this stage woul d be considered in the Commission's discussions,
although this was not yet the comment period following notification.  He said more time was neededto finalize the EC's own position and proposed to have  more scientific and technical discussions at the
next Committee meeting.
19. The representative of Malaysia welcomed the EC's proposal for more in-depth discussions at
the next meeting.  She referred to notificati on G/TBT/Notif.00/356 dated 18 August 2000 by France
concerning the draft Decree on the collection, exploitation and elimination of used tyres.  She heldthat this notification did not contain technical, but only financial requirements and wondered whether
it could be considered a technical regulation under the Agreement.  She also raised concerns about the
trend towards the "producer pays principle" and the notion that the costs of treating non-reusable
tyres were higher than earnings from exploitation.  It was also stated in the notification that the
exploitation branch could not achieve a financial balance so it was necessary to provide financing tomake good this deficit and compensate those co llecting used tyres, owners of exploitation or
elimination firms, etc., and that producers would contribute towards the exploitation and elimination
of used tyres.  Her delegation was concerned about the overall impact of the draft Decree on SMEs
and would provide additional comments to the relevant French authority.
20. The representative of the European Communitie s promised to consider the issue raised by
Malaysia.
21. The representative of Mexico recalled his delegation's statement regarding US notification
G/TBT/Notif.00/5 on tuna labelling.  The US representative had clarified that the measure was a
voluntary standard and should not have been notified under Article 2.9 of the Agreement.  He
wondered whether a corrigendum of the notification would be submitted, as this was a matter of
particular interest to Mexico and still under investigation by Mexican authorities.
22. The representative of the United States declared her readiness to issue a corrigendum for
clarification.
23. The representative of Canada voiced concerns about compulsory labelling with respect to
non-product related process and production methods (PPMs) in the European Union.  He questioned
the consistency of such labelling schemes under the WTO Agreements, including the
TBT Agreement.  He drew the Committee's attention to the EC's notification G/TBT/Notif.00/428dated 15 September 2000 concerning certain marketing standards for eggs.  In accordance with
Article 2.5 of the Agreement, his delegation wished to receive an explanation of its justification,
including information about the determination of the conditions that would govern the indications ofG/TBT/M/21
Page 5
farming methods. His delegation would monitor this proposal to ensure that it was not discriminatory
or creating unnecessary obstacles to trade.  Written comments would be provided to the EC before the
end of the comment period.
24. The representative of the United States expressed her interest in the issue.  She wondered
about the change from a voluntary to a mandatory scheme and its justification.  She looked forward to
receiving further information.
25. The representative of the European Communities took note of the statements for further
consideration and would come back to it at the next meeting.
26. He recalled their concern about the Japanese legislation related to engines of fishing vessels.
He held that the Regulation was not in line with re levant international standards, as it was based on
engine displacement and not on engine output.  As a result, imports of engines were unnecessarily
restricted, because the Regulation encouraged domestic manufacturers to produce engines tailored tounique requirements out of line with international standards.  He welcomed the fact that Japan had set
up a study group to advise the government on a revision of the Regulation.  He understood that the
study group had reached the view that engine output was the best method of regulation.  However, it
had recommended a different approach as an interim solution.  This did not resolve the EC's problem,
as the interim solution was still incompatible with in ternational standards in this field.  He invited a
response from Japan on this specific point.  He expressed his wish to see a revision in line with the
relevant international standards so that the power of engines to be installed in a fishing boat was
regulated in terms of actual engine output expressed in horsepower.
27. The representative of Japan said that expert discussions had just finished and
recommendations were still under consideration within his government. He would keep Members
informed, including the EC.
28. The representative of the United States recalled her statement at the last meeting concerning
the EC's Electromagnetic Capability (EMC) Directive and certain International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) standards referenced in relation to that Directive.  Her delegation had recently
received a response from the EC.  She might come back to this issue at a future meeting.
29. She recalled Brazil's concerns at the last meeting regarding EC notification
G/TBT/Notif.00/289 on an identification system of bovine animals and the labelling of beef and beef
products.  She noted that the US had an interest in these products and would further examine the
issue. The stated objective was to establish a labelling system;  in her opinion, the text made clear the
importance of these issues in view of the BSE crisis to prevent consumer deception.  She agreed that
an appropriate identification of animals and beef pr oducts would assist in tracking animal health and
tracing food born illnesses.  This rose the question whether it might not be more appropriately notifiedunder the SPS Agreement.
30. She recalled concerns expressed at the last meeting about the Indonesian proposed food
labelling requirements that had not been notified.  She welcomed that, as she understood, Indonesia
would notify this issue and thanked Indonesia for productive bilateral discussions.
31. She referred to document G/TBT/W/155, submitted  by the US to highlight the growing
importance of biotechnology and the various notifications made.  She announced to submit an
addendum that would include an updated table providing a summary of both SPS and
TBT notifications for the information of the Committee.
32. The representative of Canada welcomed the US intent to update document G/TBT/W/155.
With regard to activities in the Codex Alimenta rius Committee on Food Labelling, he informed the
Committee that in May 2000 a drafting group had been established to elaborate a guideline for theG/TBT/M/21
Page 6
labelling of foods derived through biotechnology.  At its May meeting, the Codex Alimentarius
Committee on Food Labelling had considered the options of either mandatory labelling based on
health and safety considerations or mandatory labelling based on health and safety considerations as
well as on the method of production.  He pointed out that Codex as an international intergovernmental
standards body for food safety undertook to develop a standard on what appeared to be a TBT issue.He expressed his concern about the potential trade implications of this work.  Both Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement and Article III of the GATT stated that Members had to ensure that imported
products be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national
origin.  He believed that the issue of non-product related PPM labelling was generally held to be a like
product issue.  The use of non-product related PPM labelling schemes with respect to GMOs could
have much broader trade implications.  Labelling on production methods could be applied to mining,
forestry, fisheries products, other agricultural products and manufactured goods.  This type oflabelling could be used to mark items for environmental, social and even ethical considerations.  He
encouraged Members to review with appropriate regulatory authorities the implications of the
proposals being considered in the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling with regard to
GMO labelling in its own right and beyond.
33. The Committee took note of the statements made.
III. PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE OPERATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.4
34. The Chairman drew attention to document  Job 5633 (17 September 2000) containing a
non-exhaustive list of issues proposed for discussion under the Review, and to documents
G/TBT/SPEC/11, Add.1 and Add.2, compiling submissions made by Members since 1 January 1998following the First Triennial Review.  He also drew attention to documents G/TBT/W/143
(submission by Canada concerning implementation, international standardization, conformity
assessment and technical assistance), G/TBT/W/144 (submission by Japan concerning international
standards), G/TBT/W/145 (submission by New Zeal and on equivalency of standards), G/TBT/W/146
(submission by Cameroon on technical assistance ) and G/TBT/W/147 (communication by Japan on
issues concerning conformity assessment).  He reminded Members that the report of the
Second Triennial Review was to be submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods and thereafter to the
General Council before their last meetings of the year.
35. He summarized that, to date, issues suggested for a possible coverage in the Review included
the following:  implementation of the Agreement, notifications and procedures for information
exchange, international standards and international standardizing bodies, conformity assessment
procedures, technical regulations, technical assistance and special and differential treatment,equivalency of standards and labelling.  He felt there was an understanding among Members to
request the Secretariat to prepare a draft framework document of the Second Triennial Review as a
basis for more detailed discussions at the next meeting (to be held on 6-10 November 2000), when the
final document would be adopted.
36. The representative of Egypt drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that small
delegations might be involved in a number of meetings at the same time.
37. The representative of India shared the views expressed by Egypt.
38. The Chairman recalled that meeting dates of the TBT Committee had had to be rescheduled in
view of the last meeting in the current year of  the Council on Trade in Goods and said that time
clashes with formal meetings of different bodies should be avoided wherever possible.
39. The representative of Venezuela welcomed the documents submitted by different delegations
and, in particular, proposals not intended to amend the Agreement.  He recalled that, simultaneously,G/TBT/M/21
Page 7
a Special Session of the General Council dealt with implementation issues in developing countries,
among other things, in relation to the TBT Agreement.  A number of Members, including Venezuela,
had expressed the view that treatment of these problems had to remain in the hands of the
General Council.  Nevertheless, he wished to draw  the attention of the Committee to the difficulties
arising for a number of developing country Members from implementation commitments.  Heexpressed concern that further commitments might arise from the Second Triennial Review at a time
when it was still difficult for many Members to implement existing ones.  He deemed a further
strengthening of technical cooperation indispensable and proposed to focus more on specific means of
action under the Review.  The Committee should assess the possibility of hiring experts to advise
Members at their requests on their implementation problems, which was the route followed by the
Committee on Customs Valuation.  Concerning special and differential treatment, he proposed that
flexibility for developing country Members with respect to time periods be included in the Report ofthe Second Triennial Review in case any further deadline schedules might result from the Review.
40. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN countries, expressed her
hope that the outcome of the Triennial review w ould lead to improved operation and implementation
of the Agreement, including transparency.  She we lcomed the issues identified for review, such as
improvements of notification procedures, setting of guidelines for international standardsdevelopment, principles relating to conformity assessment and equivalency of standards.  Particular
attention needed to be paid to technical assistance, especially with regard to enhancing participation of
developing countries in international standards-setting.  She invited concrete ideas on how to address
the issues of technical assistance and technical cooperation.  ASEAN also welcomed the draft
guidelines for international standards developmen t to assist international standardizing bodies in
strengthening and clarifying their rules and procedures, particularly on transparency, openness and
impartiality.  She expressed her hope that the Review would also put pressure on Members to act in
accordance with the spirit of the TBT Agreement, particularly Article 2.2, in the preparation, adoption
and application of technical regulations, so that these would not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.
She noted that, unfortunately, to date, there had been a tendency to adopt rather trade restrictiveregulations.  Concerning issues for review, she al so highlighted that there was no need to deal with
labelling.  It was not sure as to whether labelling could be a subject for discussion under the Triennial
Review, for which the mandate was to review the operation and implementation of the Agreement.
Labelling, like packaging and marking, fell under the issue of technical regulations and standards.  It
was the intention of the Agreement that these themselves did not cause unnecessary barriers to trade.
41. The representative of New Zealand drew Members' attention to document G/TBT/W/145 on
the equivalency of standards, which built on an earlier submission contained in document
G/TBT/W/88.  She noted that Article 2.7 of the Agreement included a requirement that positive
consideration be given to acceptance of equivalency of technical regulations.  She believed that this
concept could usefully be applied in the development of voluntary standards as well.  Standards
equivalency had the potential to reduce unnecessary obstacles to trade and provide a useful interim
solution for the facilitation of trade until an international standard was available.
42. She expressed her conviction that there was no conflict in the relationship between
equivalency of standards and the development of international standards.  Equivalency could even be
an important stepping stone towards international standards.  She emphasized that equivalency should
only be applied where international standards did not exist and the development of international
standards needed to remain the focus of work in  the Committee.  However, in reality, relevant
international standards were not always available.  Their development could take a long time and
there would always be a time-lag between the identification of a need for a new international standard
and one actually being finalized.  These were the circumstances when equivalency of standards could
be considered a useful tool.
43. She highlighted that the major change to their pr evious contribution related to the form of the
proposal.  In earlier discussions, her delegation had suggested an amendment to the Code of GoodG/TBT/M/21
Page 8
Practice.  However, her delegation had come to the view that the concept of standards equivalency
could be promoted through the Report on the Second Triennial Review.  Some specific language was
suggested in paragraph 6 of document G/TBT/W/145, which she would like to see included.  She
added that the proposal was not meant to impose further binding commitments on Members, but to
encourage positive consideration of equivalency of standards as an interim measure, in case norelevant international standard existed.  She welcomed comments received by other Members for
further consideration.
44. The representative of Japan introduced document G/TBT/W/144 on international standards.
He highlighted two points of the paper:  first, standards were not to be automatically given the status
of international standards in the context of Articles 2.4, 2.5 and Annex 3, simply on the grounds that
they had been developed in accordance with guidel ines for the international standards development
process;  and second, there were cases where certain standards should be denied the status ofinternational standards in the context of Articles 2.4, 2.5 and Annex 3.  He understood that there was
support by a large number of Members regarding the first point, but divergent views and uncertainties
about the second one.  He welcomed comments re ceived by Members on the proposal which would be
taken in consideration.  He considered the issue of international standards to be of prime importance
for inclusion in the Triennial Review.
45. He also introduced document G/TBT/W/147 on conformity assessment.  Under Article 5.4,
international guides and recommendations were to be used as a basis for conformity assessment
procedures. He noted that the definition of guides and recommendations issued by international
standardizing bodies was not clearly set out.  His delegation believed that there should be a clear
understanding among Members regarding these guides and recommendations.  It was also importantto have a decision regarding reference documents developed by international or regional systems for
conformity assessment, which might have effects on the results of conformity assessment.  The
development process of such reference documents by international or regional systems should also be
transparent, open and impartial.  His delegation, therefore, proposed the following points for inclusion
in the report of the Second Triennial Review:  first, that guides and recommendations referred to inArticle 5.4 of the Agreement be exclusively developed by international standardizing bodies through
transparent, open and impartial processes;  and second, that Members take reasonable and available
measures to ensure that international and regional systems for conformity assessment, in which
relevant bodies within their territories were members or participants, develop their documents through
transparent, open and impartial processes.
46. The representative of Switzerland recalled that the mandate of the Committee was also to
recommend adjustments to the rights and obligations under the Agreement where necessary, including
to propose amendments to the text of the Agreement to the Council on Trade in Goods. However, in
his opinion, the rules themselves were not so much of a problem as their application. Members
sharing their experience in implementing the Agreem ent had identified certain deficiencies and the
need for clarification and support in order to fulfill their obligations and make use of their rights.
There was room for the Committee to agree on a number of recommendations to improve theapplication of certain provisions of the Agreement.   But he also realized that Members ought to be
aware that there were certain limits to what could be achieved by the WTO in the context of TBT.
The WTO was neither a regulator nor a conformity assessment/standardizing body.  It was the role of
the Committee to clarify certain provisions, strengthen the dialogue with relevant bodies and be a
catalyst in order to meet developing countries' needs while avoiding duplication of work.
47. The representative of Canada introduced document G/TBT/W/143 on his delegation's
positions for the Second Triennial Review.  The paper was a product of extensive consultation in
Canada, involving trade and other regulatory offici als, standardizing bodies and interested members
of the public.  Canada was of the view that the Review could lead to concrete outcomes in a number
of areas.  One of these areas was technical assistance, whereby the Chairman's report of theJuly Workshop could be drawn upon in formulat ing recommendations.  Another important area forG/TBT/M/21
Page 9
concrete results was international standardization.  His delegation felt that document Job 3937 offered
a good basis with regard to guidelines for the development of international standards that the
Committee might agree upon.  He expressed support for the proposal by New Zealand with respect to
equivalency of standards.  Other areas with possible concrete outcomes were conformity assessment
and the importance of sub-national notifications.  He added that the common theme of all elementscovered in his country's proposal was the importance of coordination and cooperation amongst
domestic and international officials dealing with trade regulations and standards to achieve the full
benefits of the Agreement.
48. The representative of the European Communitie s highlighted some of the key points of the
EC proposal (G/TBT/W/133).  Although an overall a pproach to implementation was discussed in the
General Council, his delegation was interested to find practical solutions to TBT issues, for instance
concerning developing countries' participation in international standardization work and the need forcapacity building to help developing country Members implement the Agreement.  An improvement
of notification procedures was possible on the basis of the document prepared by the Secretariat
(G/TBT/SPEC/16).  His delegation wished to encourage the wider use of available technology
without making it an obligation on Members.  The application of existing rules, decisions and
recommendations by the Committee needed to be encouraged.
49. On international standardization, he reiterated the need for guidelines, as the Agreement was
not clear enough.  He highlighted three main points:  first, a proliferation of competing international
standards should be avoided;  second, effective participation in the standardization process should be
ensured and take place through national delegations;  and third, there should be a coherent set of
international standards when used in the context of technical regulations.  Coherency was related to
the constitution and status of an international standardizing body.  A clarification of international
standards was not possible without focussing on the criteria for international standardizing bodies.
50. On conformity assessment, a recommendation by  the Committee could be developed based on
the Australian proposal (G/TBT/W/138), enhanced by the latest submission from Japan
(G/TBT/W/147).  It should also be recognized th at further work in this field was needed.  For
example, the use of the least trade-restrictive conformity assessment procedure should be encouraged
and preference be given to supplier's declaration of conformity where feasible.  This, he said, was not
always possible taking into account the risks of the product, obligations for market surveillance,
liability legislation and so on.  Also, regional cooperation on accreditation should be promoted.  The
Committee should leave open the option to develop a code in this area to strengthen the Agreement in
the longer term.  The Committee should also take into consideration the revision of ISO/IEC Guide 60
undertaken by ISO/CASCO.  The Committee should commit itself to technical assistance in this field,which might be more crucial for developing country Members than international standardization.
51. On technical regulations he said best regulatory practice needed to be encouraged.  Although
this issue had not been addressed as an ongoing exercise, a first step should be an exchange of
information on existing practices.
52. Technical assistance was widely believed to be a key element to the Triennial Review.  He
suggested that the Review should offer a "road map" with practical suggestions for assistance and not
merely recognition of its importance.  Elements could include:  a work programme, not necessarily
managed by the Secretariat, but at least monitored by the TBT Committee;  regular reviews and
discussions on corrective measures if assistance did not achieve its goal;  and liaison planning in
relation to relevant organizations and agencies working in this field.  He also recognized that manydeveloping countries faced difficulties in identi fying their needs in specific terms, and outside
assistance and technical cooperation might be needed to that end.  While the July Workshop had
offered a variety of general observations, a precise indication and prioritization of needs would be
required.  His delegation also held the belief that awareness of the TBT domain needed to be raised
within administrations and private industries in developing country Members as well as donorG/TBT/M/21
Page 10
countries.  It was also necessary that developing country Members mobilize their own resources or
pool resources in regional cooperation arrangements.  He supported the proposal put forward by
Brazil (G/TBT/W/140) on a triennial technical cooperation programme.  This should include, as much
as possible, the use of modern technology.  He reiterated that donors should be as transparent as
possible and be prepared to employ a variety of technical assistance tools in order to match prioritiesof developing country Members.  He stressed that the TBT Committee ought to play a catalyst role
and help coordinate technical assistance activities.  On standardization, this meant that the Committee
ought to encourage international standardizing bodies to do their utmost to change practices and allow
for more participation of developing countries.  A fundamental goal was to obtain practical measures
on technical assistance from the Second Triennial Review.
53. On the equivalency of standards, he said that in light of explanations given by New Zealand
on how it related to international standardization, his delegation could give its guarded support.
54. He reiterated his belief that the issue of labelling was within the scope of the Agreement.
Clearer guidance on labelling would reduce the risk of disputes in the future.  His delegation proposed
that a work programme be indicated in the Triennial Review.  A start could be made with an exchange
of information and examination of work done in other fora, e.g. international standardizing bodies,
such as FAO/Codex.  Then, the Committee could consider how relevant TBT provisions could beclarified.  This could not be achieved for the Second Triennial Review, but it could be taken note of as
an ongoing exercise that might lead to the development of multilateral guidelines.  These, he felt,
would assist in the application of the Agreement.
55. The representative of India noted that the Agreement recognized the role of international
standards in removing technical barriers to trade and in facilitating international trade.  International
standardizing bodies, therefore, had to take into co nsideration the interests of all parties concerned in
a demonstrable way.  International standards developed without soliciting inputs from a wide range of
interests could result in the creation of trade barriers and adversely affect international trade.  In order
for international standards to make a maximum contribution to facilitate trade it was important that all
Members had the opportunity to participate in the discussion, elaboration and adoption ofinternational standards.  International standardizing bodies should be strictly guided by the principles
of transparency, openness, impartiality and adequate reflection of the concerns of developing
countries.
56. He identified certain common elements in the papers by the EC and Brazil (G/TBT/W/133
and 140), such as the issue of avoiding the duplication of work by different standardizing bodies,
which could lead to different standards for the same subject.  His delegation endorsed the principle of
singularity of international standardizing bodies and international standards and supported the papersby the EC and Brazil in this regard.  He added that provisions be built in the process of international
standardization stipulating that international standards take account of the prevailing level of
technology, technical and socio-economic development and trade needs of developing countries.  The
capacity of developing countries to prepare and adopt international standards should also be
considered.  He concluded that this would facilitate the harmonization of international standards withnational standards and thereby minimize the possible conflict between internationally and nationally
accepted standards.
57. He suggested that the discussion on international standards ought to focus on (i) the definition
of international standards and international standardizing bodies;  (ii) the practice followed by
international standardizing bodies and the development of a code of practice to be followed by these
bodies similar to Annex 3 of the Agreement; and (iii) the encouragement to use international
standards.  He emphasized the need for instituting a consensus-based decision making process in these
bodies in addition to the above-mentioned elements.G/TBT/M/21
Page 11
58. He also noted that while India as well as many other Members had referred to the need for
formulating appropriate guidelines for use by international standardizing bodies, no concrete proposal
to operationalize these guidelines had come forward.  He proposed that the Committee based on the
submissions received prepare draft guidelines for use by international standardizing bodies.  He
invited other Members to make further suggestions as to their formulation.  He also mentioned that
concrete steps were required to achieve and increase the number of mutual recognition and
equivalence agreements in order to enhance market access opportunities for developing countries.
59. The representative of Norway recommended that tangible results be achieved on technical
assistance going further than the recommendations of the last Review.  It could be possible to achieve
an overall programme identifying main priorities for technical assistance and possible partners.  The
workshop on technical assistance might serve as a basis.  He generally agreed with the EC's position
on this subject.  Concerning international standards, he indicated that competing standards had to beavoided, a principle that ought to be reflected in the guidelines.
60. The representative of Egypt noted that comments made by her delegation at previous
meetings had been reflected in document Job 3937 on international standards.  Regarding the
Japanese proposal, she stated that the concept of market relevancy could not be defined through a
number of rigid criteria, but had to deal with the enhancement of participation of developing countries
in the standards-setting process.  A standard could not be internationally relevant unless developed
and developing countries' market needs were reflected.  According to Article 2.4 and 2.5, Members
are obliged to use international standards when deemed appropriate and effective.  She warned if there
were certain rigid criteria to define an international standard, this could lead to a situation where
countries were discouraged to use international standards.  With market relevancy being an element tobe considered on whether a standard was an international standard under Articles 2.4 and 2.5,
problems regarding the burden of proof could unfold in case of disputes.  Referring to the Japanese
proposal concerning technological content of internat ional standards, she said it did not reflect her
delegation's concerns about criteria for outdated standards and how this could affect products of
importance to developing countries.
61. Concerning technical assistance, she welcomed the proposal by Canada.  She also noted that
the July Workshop had highlighted many developing country Members' needs and a number of
concrete proposals.  Donor countries and relevant international organizations had shown their
willingness to act.  She recommended that the Committee associated itself with the Chairman's Report
of the Workshop and should not lose its practical and concrete results.  The Review should give
indications how technical assistance efforts could be conducted.  She suggested that the Secretariat
could act as a focal point or liaison office in this regard.  She recalled that Brazil had mentioned thecreation of a working party or sub-committee.  The EC had spoken of a "road map" defining
developing countries' needs and priorities as well as activities by donor countries, international
standardizing bodies or other relevant international organizations.
62. She reiterated that labelling was a sensitive subject for developing and least developed
country Members.  Any issue under the Second Triennial Review needed to remain within theframework of the Agreement.  There should not be an attempt to widen the scope of the Agreement to
encompass additional aspects and concepts.  Discussing labelling issues was one thing, setting
multilateral guidelines another.  She thanked Japan, New Zealand, Canada and Cameroon for their
respective submissions on various issues.  These papers were currently examined by her authorities,
and she would make comments at a future date.
63. The representative of the United States stated, with regard to international standards, that her
delegation attached great importance to reaching conclusions on openness, transparency, impartiality,
effectiveness and relevancy of international standards, as well as on the particular concerns of
developing countries.  She recalled the US proposal for a Committee decision in this respect.  All
interested parties of all Members needed to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in theG/TBT/M/21
Page 12
discussion, elaboration and adoption of international standards.  Opportunities for participation should
not be conditional on factors such as nationality or technical qualifications.  The important notion of
consensus implied that standardizing bodies should have an established process seeking to take into
account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.  There should
be the right of appeal if a party believed it was denied consideration of its views.
64. She welcomed the Secretariat's compilation of proposals in document Job 3937.
Nevertheless, there might be a better way to organize the material in its final form.  The document
currently combined the responsibilities of Members with the Committee's expectations concerning the
conduct of international standardization bodies.  Another approach was to begin with a statement of
the Committee's objectives, such as transparency, openness and impartiality and to then continue with
a list of concrete actions and expectations for international standardizing bodies.  In deciding on the
final form, the Committee had to respect the independent nature of international standardizing bodies.She recalled the US original proposal to create an obligation on Members and their bodies
participating in international standardizing bodies.
65. She cast doubts whether there was a need to clarify the status and constitution of an
international body.  The Agreement encouraged Members to use international standards, when
appropriate, as a basis for technical regulations.  It did not intend to dictate which internationalstandards developed by which international standardizing bodies should be used.  The Agreement
implicitly recognized that a standardizing body could not meet or anticipate all needs of Members.
Rather than status or constitution, it was important that the process was transparent, open, impartial
and based on consensus.  The quality of a standard was not guaranteed by the nationality of
participants.  Technical competence was an important factor:  if participation by specialists did notoccur, it was unlikely that the standards would meet all the elements demanded by the end user.  The
involvement of all stakeholders would minimize the possibility that the resulting standard created
unnecessary barriers to trade.  She welcomed the contributions by Canada highlighting the need for
domestic cooperation and coordination;  by Australia highlighting the need for demand-driven
standards that were responsive to market needs;  and by Japan highlighting the difficulties that mightarise if a standard was not market relevant or obsolete.
66. She noted that the Chairman's report on the Workshop briefly summarized some technical
assistance needs and requirements.  There was no one single model bureaucratic or administrative
structure that all countries should follow.  Presentations had highlighted the importance of ensuring
that solutions were targeted to needs identified by individual or groups of developing countries.
Another theme was the need for effective coordination at the national level between
agencies/authorities and other interested parties for implementation purposes and identification ofinfrastructural requirements in priority areas. While Workshop discussions had been useful, further
reflections were necessary for the Second Triennial Review.  Concerning the problem of effective
participation in the development of international standards, unlike the SPS Agreement, which had
identified three specific international standardizin g bodies for purposes of implementation, in the field
of TBT there was a broad range of intergovernmental and non-governmental standardizing bodies,which might develop international standards as a basis for technical regulations.  It was critical for
developing countries as part of their national consultation to assess which products or sectors would
be of priority interest to them for international standardization and to identify the relevant body for
that purpose.  This way the specific challenges to  effective participation could be identified and
resources appropriately targeted.
67. The Workshop had been useful in listing options for national bodies to address general
obstacles to effective participation of developing countries, such as the use of the internet and video
conferencing, locations of secretariats and venues for meetings.  She said Brazil's idea for a triennial
technical cooperation review merited further consideration as well as Chile's proposal for specific
assistance to define mechanisms for cooperation.  The Committee's ability to have an ongoinginformation exchange should also be further examined.  She welcomed the submission by CameroonG/TBT/M/21
Page 13
and announced to come back to these issues at th e next meeting with a view towards clarifying the
appropriate role of the Committee in maintaining demand-driven technical assistance and cooperation.
68. On conformity assessment, she commended the proposals by Australia and Japan as a basis
for discussions.  She hoped for a good understanding on this issue in the context of the Review and
pointed to the need for more discussion on a code of good conduct.  She thanked New Zealand forrevising its proposal on equivalency of standards.  However, her delegation continued to have doubts
about the merits of the Committee interfering in what appeared to be a voluntary market-driven
undertaking.  Concerning labelling, she found the EC to be ambitious when it asked for inclusion of a
work programme in the Review without having tabl ed a more concrete proposal.  Instead, there was
ample opportunity in the course of Committee meet ings to exchange information and raise issues
concerning labelling.
69. The representative of Australia said, with regard to conformity assessment procedures, there
was scope for assisting Members in explaining to their domestic bodies how the provisions of the
Agreement could be implemented more effectively.  She welcomed that Members had found the
Australian paper helpful in providing a way forward.
70. She also stressed that Members needed confiden ce in an international standards system, that
took into account the interests of all Members.  She agreed with the US that there was no need for theWTO to make distinctions about the status and constitution of international standardizing bodies.
This could be done both domestically and internationally by Members themselves through their
participation in those bodies.  She said document Job 3937 had produced useful recommendations and
possible guidelines for international standardizing bodies.  The Committee needed to determine how
to convey these to the relevant bodies, whoever these might be, and how Members should take theseup when participating in their work.  Australia had made initial suggestions in this regard, outlined in
document G/TBT/W/139, and some countries had pointed out that the difficulty consisted in
identifying those bodies.
71. On technical assistance, she agreed with the EC, Canada and the US that practical solutions
were needed, that the Committee had a role to play and that there was scope for better coordinationand cooperation with other bodies to ensure that technical assistance was provided which met the
needs of developing countries.
72. The representative of Mexico noted it was impossible for his country to extend the comment
period on notifications beyond 60 days.  Concerning translations of notification related documents
made available by one country to other Members, he was of the opinion that the official publication of
an informal translation should not be acceptable.  Concerning notifications at the sub-federal level, he
expressed the view that it was a matter of application and not of modifying the provisions of theAgreement.  It was applicable to a limited number of Members, and Article 3 contained clear
provisions in this regard.  He agreed that defining principles for conformity assessment was
important, his country could, however, not accept a supplier's declaration of conformity.  Work under
the Triennial Review on technical regulations should not go beyond what was stipulated in the
Agreement.
73. He found the definition of international standards to be important and expressed his support
for including the concept of consensus in the prin ciples for international standards development as
well as effective participation of developing countries as a sine qua non .  His delegation had already
professed its interest in the concept of market relevance and other concepts, such as transparency,
impartiality, openness and effectiveness.  He was not in favour of including the concept ofequivalency of standards in the results of this Tr iennial Review.  The inclusion of labelling on the
check-list for the Triennial Review did not imply that it would actually be taken up.  It was his
delegation's viewpoint that it should not be part of the Review.  Concerning technical assistance, he
found that it should derive from proposals to be made by Members of the Committee.G/TBT/M/21
Page 14
74. The representative of Canada, in response to comments by Mexico on sub-national
notifications, clarified that there was no intention to change obligations of the Agreement.  It was an
implementation issue and the Committee ought to explore ways to enhance the rate of notifications
from authorities at the sub-national level.  On international standards, the Canadian proposal focused
on the principles underlying their development, which mattered from the stand-point of trade rules,and not the institutions.  By focussing on principles, such as openness, transparency and impartiality,
the concerns of many delegations would be addressed.  He expressed concerns about views on the
importance of the status of institutions.  Including th is notion in a set of guidelines would make these
rigid and ignore existing realities.
75. The representative of South Africa flagged his general support for the principles for
international standards development, as contained in document Job 3937.  He was favourable towards
a clarification of the status of international standardizing bodies and towards the notion of nationalrepresentation, as articulated by Brazil, the EC and others.  Effective participation by Members,
including developing countries, was important and the Committee should urge international
standardizing bodies to do more to enhance the participation by developing countries.  This could
encourage relevant bodies to provide more technical and financial assistance.  He also agreed that the
outcomes of the Workshop should form the basis for a work programme or road map on technicalassistance.
76. The representative of Panama supported Venezuela's comments on implementation issues and
noted that a road map for follow-up would be usef ul.  This would allow Members to set priorities.
With regard to technical assistance, she suggested that, in the short term, the Secretariat could work
together with other international agencies, who alr eady had relevant programmes and showed interest,
to set up a technical assistance programme and seek financial support by donors.  This would be the
kind of concrete proposal for inclusion in the Revi ew to produce short term results.  She suggested
that ways also be found to improve notification procedures.
77. The representative of Brazil felt that document Job 3937 on international standards was a
good basis for the report with some changes yet to be made.  Clear guidelines on the development of
international standards should be elaborated and special attention be given to those standards that
could be a basis for technical regulations.  She felt a certain coherence or singularity of international
standardizing bodies should be pursued.  On equivalency of standards, she found the issue not to be
ripe for inclusion in the Review.
78. She confirmed that the issue of technical assistance was of importance to Brazil.  The
Committee should not lose the conclusions of the July Workshop.  One way was to attach the
Chairman's report to the Second Triennial Review.  She announced that Brazil intended to submitanother paper for the next meeting in order to clarify the distinction, made in their submission
(G/TBT/W/140), between technical assistance and technical cooperation.  She suggested that a
working group or some kind of body could be created under the TBT Committee acting as a focal
point on technical assistance and related works.
79. The representative of the Czech Republic informed the Committee that about ten years ago,
the Czech Republic had gone through political and economic changes accompanied by structural
changes in TBT-related areas.  Technical assistance had been helpful for a rapid transition and he
expressed his sympathy for the demands by developing country Members in this regard.  His
experience suggested that it was often difficult, but necessary to prove to donors that technical aid
would be used in an effective and transparent way in accordance with a clear set of priorities betweenareas and within each area.  Priorities should be defined by beneficiary countries for consideration by
donors thereafter.  Beneficiaries needed to be patient and focus on medium and long term projects, as
administrative procedures of donors were often complex.  He stated it was crucial that governments of
beneficiary countries guaranteed the continuity of programmes initiated with technical aid, and
considered co-financing from domestic sources.G/TBT/M/21
Page 15
80. With regard to effective participation in in ternational standardization, he said the Czech
government covered certain participation fees for national standards bodies in international and
regional standardization organizations.  The government provided financial support for the
implementation of international and regional standards in cases where full participation by industry in
the preparation had not been possible.  In person participation was certainly helpful, but mostly notaffordable for his country.  In most cases, participation was by written correspondence, including
voting.  He agreed with the comments made by the EC on document Job 3937.
81. The representative of the European Communitie s held that the debate on whether labelling
remained within the scope of the Agreement illustrated even more that a discussion on guidelines was
justified.  He agreed with Egypt that a certain sensitivity was involved, which was an additional
reason to make improvements.  He emphasized that the role of the Committee was to address all trade
barriers and the Second Triennial Review would contain a number of sensitive issues.  Any progressto make this issue less sensitive would benefit developing countries.  The role of the Agreement was
not only to serve as a reference in trade disputes, but also to prevent disputes and to facilitate trade.
82. The representative of Egypt requested the EC to answer two questions in their intended paper
on labelling:  first, how could labelling be preven ted from being a means that hampered trade flows
from developing countries to a developed country's market;  and second, how could this becost-effective for countries, such as Egypt, whose economies heavily depended on SMEs?
83. The Committee took note of the statements made.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
84. The representative of the European Communities introduced a communication on the
precautionary principle by the European Commi ssion (G/TBT/W/137), addressed to the Council and
European Parliament where it was currently debated.  It was not a final word on this issue, but its
objective was to contribute to the ongoing debate on the application of the precautionary principle in
international fora.  He expressed his hope that the communication would help to build a common
understanding of how to manage risks in situations of scientific uncertainty and indications of
potential adverse environmental or health effects.  Its purpose was also to dispel fears that theprecautionary principle might be used in an arbitr ary way or as a disguised form of protectionism.
85. He explained that the most recent application of the precautionary principle at the
international level was the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which would further contribute to its
international consolidation.  He felt that there was merit in clarifying this principle in the WTO.  He
asserted that it could not be used to justify arbitrary measures; instead, measures taken on the basis of
this principle had to comply with the general principles of proportionality, non-discrimination,
cost-effectiveness and transparency.  He announced to revert to this topic when the EC would have
further defined its understanding.
86. The representative of Canada was interested in collaborating to advance this issue
internationally, in the TBT Committee and in other fora, such as the CTE and the SPS Committee.
The OECD Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment undertook work in this area, as well as
UNEP to which Canada had provided written comments.  He affirmed that Canada shared commongrounds with the EC on a number of issues raised in the communication, but required clarification of
some issues.  Detailed written comments and questions had been provided to the Commission in July.
He indicated his wish to work with other interested Members to develop a more comprehensive and
coherent view on this issue.
87. The representative of India thanked the EC for its paper, although he did not consider the
issue to be relevant to the TBT Agreement.  He felt it was in an attempt to mainstream environmental
issues into respective WTO Councils and Committees without addressing the basic relationshipG/TBT/M/21
Page 16
between trade and environment as mandated by the Marrakesh decision.  Trade and environment
issues should be discussed and decided upon in the CTE pursuant to its mandate, terms of reference
and agenda items.  If at all, this issue belonged to item 2 of the CTE's agenda.  It was only upon
recommendation by the CTE that a trade and environment issue could be discussed in another
WTO body, such as the TBT Committee.
88. He contended that several provisions illustrated that the precautionary principle had no place
in the Agreement.  Article 2.2 stated that technical regulations ought not to be more trade restrictive
than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective, ta king account of the risks that non-fulfillment would
create.  Relevant elements for consideration were, inter alia , available scientific and technical
information.  Incomplete scientific evidence was not admitted.  Article 2.4 obliged Members to use
international standards as a basis for technical regulations.  Exception was made in case such
international standards proved ineffective or inappr opriate for the fulfillment of a legitimate objective,
for instance, due to fundamental climatic or geographical factors or technological problems.  An
exception was not permitted on the basis of the so-called precautionary principle.  Articles 2.9 and
2.10 gave procedures for notifying technical regulations in case adequate international standards did
not exist.  Opportunity was provided to other Memb ers to comment before application of the measure
or immediately after, in case of urgent problems.
89. From all this, it was not clear to him how the EC intended to introduce the concept of
precaution to the Committee.  The EC paper itself me ntioned that even the EC Treaty did not refer to
this principle, except for the protection of the environment.  References to human, animal and plant
health in connection with the precautionary principle might better be addressed in the SPS Committee.
The paper also referred to the precautionary principle as a fully fledged and general principle ofinternational law.  His delegation disagreed:  while it was a principle of environmental law, referenced
in the Rio Declaration and the Biosafety Protocol, it was not a principle of international law in
general.  This was why it ought to be discussed in the CTE under item 2 of its agenda along with other
environment and trade principles, as India had advocated since 1996.  There was no mandate to pick
one environmental principle for discussion in a specific WTO Committee without an even-handeddiscussion in CTE.
90. He urged the EC not to press for discussion of this topic in the TBT Committee as it had no
relevance for TBT matters.  If the Committee was to discuss the issue nevertheless, India reserved its
right to give a detailed response to the arguments made by the EC in due course.
91. The representative of Mexico said its position on the precautionary principle had been stated
in different WTO Councils and Committees.  Its very concept became a hidden barrier to trade, and its
discussion ought to take place in the CTE.
92. The representative of Egypt consented with India.
93. The representative of the United States said  the TBT Committee might be a difficult forum to
discuss precaution, which needed to be context-specific.  She agreed with India that this principle was
not a customary principle of international law.
94. The Chairman announced that the next Committee meeting was to be held on Friday,
10 November 2000.  He envisaged a series of informal meetings in the week of 6-10 November 2000
to make progress in the Second Triennial Review process.
95. The Committee took note of the statements made.
_____________