COMMITTEE ONTECHNICAL BARRIERS TOTRADE
Draft Minutes oftheMeeting heldon27March 1998
Attachedheretopleasefindthedraftminutesofthemeetingheldon27March1998.Delegations
areinvited tosubmit comments, ifany,tothesecretariat (Mrs. Vivien Liu,tel.:739.54.55) by
15May1998.
98-1711RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/TBT/W/65
28April 1998
ORGANIZATION(98-1711)
Committee onTechnical Barriers toTrade
DRAFT MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON27MARCH 1998
Chairman: Mr.T.H.M.Tong (Hong Kong, China)
1. TheCommittee onTechnical Barriers toTrade helditstwelfth meeting on27March 1998.
2. Thefollowing agenda, contained inWTO/AIR/799 wasadopted:
Page
I. Request ofObserver Status intheCommittee bytheOffice International
delaVigne etduVin(OIV) 2
II. Third Annual Review oftheImplementation andOperation ofthe
TBTAgreement under Article 15.3 2
III. Third Annual Review oftheCode ofGood Practice forthePreparation,
Adoption andApplication ofStandards inAnnex 3oftheAgreement under the
Ministerial Decision onReview oftheISO/IEC Information Centre Publication 3
IV. Programme ofWork Arising form theFirstTriennial Review oftheOperation
andImplementation oftheTBTAgreement under Article 15.4 3
V. Statements onImplementation andAdministration oftheAgreement 11
VI. Other Business 13
VII. Election ofOfficer 14G/TBT/W/65
Page2
I. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS INTHE COMMITTEE BYTHE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DELAVIGNE ETDUVIN(OIV)
3. TheChairman recalled theCommittee 'sdiscussions (G/TBT/M/8 and10)ontherequest for
observer status bytheOffice International deLaVigne etduVin(OIV). Heinformed theCommittee
ofarecent communication received from theOIV, containing information ontheorganization and
itsactivity (G/TBT/W/62).
4. Therepresentative oftheUnited States welcomed theinformation provided bytheOIV.
However, herdelegation could notjointheconsensus ongranting observer status totheOIVatthe
moment.
5. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities reiterated herdelegation 'ssupport forthe
observer status oftheOIV. ShesaidthattheOIVhadbeenrecognized tobetheonlyinternational
intergovernmental organization competent toprepare international standards intheareaofwine. She
questioned thereason whytherequest bytheOIVcould notbegranted.
6. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made. TheChairman invited interested Members
tocontinue informal consultations ontherequest, taking intoaccount theinformation provided bythe
OIV.
II. THIRD ANNUAL REVIEW OFTHE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OFTHE
TBTAGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.3
7. TheChairman drewattention totheSecretariat 'sbackground document G/TBT/6 fortheThird
Annual Review oftheImplementation andOperation oftheAgreement.
8. Therepresentative ofIndia noted thatin1997, Members allowed anaverage of46.3daysfor
comments ondraftregulations. Heexpressed concern about theshort comment period provided, and
thatitwasadifficult situation fordeveloping countries where domestic procedures tooklonger. He
saidthatIndia provided 90daysforcomments, andurged other Members toprovide atleast60days
asrecommended bytheCommittee.
9. Therepresentative ofCanada shared theconcerns expressed byIndia. Herecalled the
Committee 'srecommendation thataMember might proceed toimplement aproposed measure after
45days, ifnocomments orrequests forextension ofthetimelimit hadbeenreceived from other
Members within thattime. Heproposed toderestrict thedocument containing theAnnual Review
immediately, sothatinterested parties, whether national, sub-national ornon-governmental, could be
aware oftheoperational aspect oftheAgreement.
10. TherepresentativesofMexicoandIndiathoughtthatderestrictionofdocumentswasahorizontal
issue, andthattheCommittee should follow thegeneral guidelines oftheGeneral Council toderestrict
documents attheappropriate time.
11. Therepresentatives ofAustralia andNewZealand noted thatthedocument provided factual
information andthatitwould beuseful tomake itpublicly available. ACommittee could make decisions
toderestrict documents, ifitsowished. Therepresentative ofAustralia informed theCommittee that
theinformationcontainedindocumentG/TBT/ENQ/10,concerningtheAustralianenquirypoint,needed
tobeupdated.G/TBT/W/65
Page3
12. TheCommitteetooknoteofthestatementsmade.TheChairpersonsaidthatfurtherconsultations
would beneeded fortheCommittee totakeadecision ontheCanadian proposal toderestrict document
G/TBT/6 immediately.
III. THIRD ANNUAL REVIEW OFTHE CODE OFGOOD PRACTICE FOR THE
PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OFSTANDARDS INANNEX 3OF
THE AGREEMENT
13. TheChairman drewattention tothethirdedition oftheWTO TBTStandards Code Directory
prepared bytheISO/IEC Information Centre which contained theinformation received according to
paragraphs CandJoftheCode ofGood Practice. Healsodrew attention todocument
G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.4containingalistallstandardizingbodiesthathadacceptedtheCodeofGoodPractice
since 1January 1995. Upuntil11February 1998, 92standardizing bodies from 69Members had
accepted theCode andnotified theirwork programmes onstandardization. During theyear1997,
anadditional 28standardizing bodies from 26Members hadaccepted theCode ofGood Practice
(G/TBT/CS/1/Add.2).
14. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities requested theUnited States toprovide alist
ofthe200USstandardizing bodies thattheAmerican National Standards Institute (ANSI) hadaccepted
theCode ofGood Practice.
15. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthattheinformation would beprovided.
16. The representative ofJapan informed theCommittee thattwoadditional Japanese
non-governmental standardizing bodies hadnotified theiracceptance oftheCode thisyear. They were
theConsumer Product Safety Association (G/TBT/CS/N/94) andtheJapan IronandSteelFederation.
17. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
IV. PROGRAMME OFWORK ARISING FROM THEFIRST TRIENNIAL REVIEW OFTHE
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 15.4
18. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee hadcompleted itsFirstTriennial Review ofthe
Operation andImplementation oftheAgreement under Article 15.4inNovember 1998. Nine elements
wereconsidered under theReview (G/TBT/5). Theoverall viewwasthattheoperation oftheAgreement
during thefirstthree years ofitsexistence revealed thecapacity andpotential oftheAgreement to
advance theobjectives ofGATT 1994, byensuring thattechnical regulations, standards andprocedures
forassessment ofconformity didnotcreate unnecessary obstacles tointernational trade. TheCommittee
noted, however, thatcertain difficulties orproblems existed inanumber ofareasregarding theoperation
andimplementation oftheAgreement. Accordingly, theCommittee adopted anumber ofdecisions,
recommendations andarrangements aimed atbetter operation andimplementation oftheAgreement.
They include actions involving information exchange among Members, further study, reviews or
discussions intheCommittee, documents andliststobeprepared bytheSecretariat, andalso
communication withother international organizations.
19. TheChairman drew attention toparagraphs 9and12(d) ofG/TBT/5, andstated thatthe
Secretariat hadbeenrequested toprepare twolistsonthebasisofinformation provided byMembers:
(a)oneontheMembers whose localgovernment bodies, directly below thecentral government level,
areauthorized toadopt technical regulations orconformity assessment procedures; and(b)anotherG/TBT/W/65
Page4
onstandardizing bodies. Hedrew attention toacommunication G/TBT/SPEC/6 which hadbeen
circulated toinvite Members toprovide anyrelevant information toenable thecompilation ofthelists.
20. Inrespect toinformation exchange andnational experience sharing among Members, hedrew
attention tothesubmissions fromColombia on"Environmental Labels andMarket Access: CaseStudy
ontheColombianFlower-GrowingIndustry"(WT/CTE/W/76-G/TBT/W/60),fromCanadaon"Forests:
ANational Experience" (WT/CTE/W/81-G/TBT/W/61), andfromtheUnited States on"Conformity
Assessment Procedures: Supplier 'sDeclaration ofConformity" (G/TBT/W/63) andon"Transparency
inInternational Standards Development" (G/TBT/W/64).
21. Therepresentative ofColombia drew attention toWT/CTE/W/76-G/TBT/W/60 thathadalso
beensubmitted totheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment, andsaidthatitwasintended asafollow-up
totheFirstTriennial Review. Henoted thatColombia wastheworld 'ssecond biggest exporter of
flowers afterHolland withashare ofapproximately 10percenttheworld market. Hesaidthat
environmental protection wasapriority forfloriculturists inColombia, andthishadledtotheinitiative
oftheFLORVERDE programme based onsustainable management scheme. Despite theefforts to
improve environmental protection, theColombian flower-growing industry hadencountered difficulties
withitsexports because ofenvironmental measures insome countries. Trade restrictions hadresulted
fromcertain recognized private organizations waging campaigns todiscredit Colombian flowers. These
restrictions were nottheresult ofobjective andrepresentative studies from theindustry.
22. Heindicated thatthese pressure groups hadproposed eco-labelling schemes thatcould notbe
accepted bytheColombian exporters forthefollowing reasons: (a)theschemes werecostly; (b)the
approach usedwascoercive (i.e., when theColombian private sector refused toaccept theproposed
labelsthecampaignsagainstitsflowerswereintensified);(c)theschemeswerediscriminatory(i.e.,they
weredirected onlyatcertain countries); (d)theircompliance wassubject toverification byforeign
experts; and(e)thechecklists were unclear andoften arbitrary. Headded thattheproliferation of
eco-labelling schemes bydifferent organizations anddifferent countries wasmaking itimpossible for
producers tocomply withthevarious requirements theycontain.
23. InthelightoftheColombian experience, itwasimportant fortheCommittee tohaveaclear
position ontheproliferation ofprivate environmental labels which didnothaveanycommon standards
ormonitoring mechanism, which didnotcreate market distortions andthereby confuse consumers.
Itwasnecessary toguarantee transparency intheconception andapplication ofeco-labels toensure
thattheywerenon-discriminatory, andthattheparties concerned could participate intheirdevelopment
(i.e., designing theprogrammes), choosing theproduct coverage, selecting thecriteria onwhich they
were based on,andworking outanyaudit procedures. Heemphasized theimportance forbodies
preparing voluntary eco-labelling schemes toapply theCode ofGood Practice forthePreparation,
Adoption andApplication ofStandards (Annex 3oftheAgreement). Hethought thateco-labels should
takeintoaccount theenvironmental andeco-system variables specific toeachcountry. Inthisrespect,
theWTO should examine theissueofmutual recognition andequivalence withrespect toeco-labelling,
because theapplication ofthese concepts could solve some oftheproblems faced bydifferent sectors.
24. TherepresentativeofEcuadorwelcomedtheColombianpaperandsharedtheconcernsexpressed.
Hesaidthatflower exports wasimportant forhiscountry, andfaced thesame trade problems as
described byColombia. Eco-labelling schemes hadadverse trade effects, andinparticular, ifthey
were imposed inadiscriminatory way. Hesupported theview thatbodies preparing voluntary
eco-labelling schemes should comply withtherules assetdown intheCode ofGood Practice. He
thought thattheCommittee should provide disciplines tothebodies preparing eco-labelling schemes,
sothatthetrade problems faced byproducts subjected tosuchschemes could besolved.G/TBT/W/65
Page5
25. Therepresentative ofBrazil welcomed theColombian paper andshared theconcerns expressed.
Hethought thatitwasnecessary tohaveposition intheCommittee inorder toprevent theproliferation
ofsuchschemes andtheiradverse tradeeffects onallsectors. Hesupported thesuggestion ofapplying
theCode ofGood Practice tobodies preparing voluntary eco-labelling schemes.
26. TherepresentativeofCanadarecalledthattheCanadianpaper"Forestry-ANationalExperience"
(WT/CTE/W/81-G/TBT/W/61) hadbeenpresented totheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment (CTE)
on19March (WT/CTE/M/17). Hesaidthatthepaper wasnotanational position paper butwas
prepared inorder toshare national experiences under thework programme oftheTriennial Review.
Thepaper would contribute tofuture discussions onstandards andlabelling intheCommittee. He
notedthatitpresentedCanada'sexperienceintheforestproductssectors,giventhatgovernment,industry
andother members ofcivilsociety hadfaced challenges inintegrating trade andenvironment policy
concerns. Itdidnotreach definitive conclusions duetothefactthattheCanadian experience with
theinstruments listed inthepaper wasstillatapreliminary stage. However, hewasoftheviewthat
theissues raised were ofserious andrealimpact.
27. Thepaper outlined theCanadian experience withfivevoluntary instruments: ISO14001
environmental management systems standards; theCanadian Standards Association (CSA) Forest
Certification System Standards (CAN/CSA-Z808/9); theForest Stewardship Council (FSC) product
certification system; theEnvironmental Profile DataSheet (EPDS) TypeIIIorreport cardenvironment
label; andtheEnvironmental Choice Type Ieco-label. Henoted thatISO14001 hadbeendeveloped
through theinternational standards development process. Intheforestry sector, itcould beapplied
totheresource management phase, theproduction phase orboth. Itwasbased uponcompliance with
thelocal regulatory framework andcontinual improvement. Abridging document tofacilitate
implementation anduseofISO14001 byforest organizations hadbeendeveloped.
28. TheCSA Forest Certification System Standard hadbeen developed through anational,
multi-stakeholder standards development process. Itonlyapplied totheresource management phase.
Itusedthesame basic structure andapproach asthemanagement systems approach ofISO14001,
butwasalsoaperformance standard incertain keyaspects. These were withreference tonational
criteria andindicators ofsustainable forest management andthespecific requirements forpublic
consultation andinput. AsinthecaseofISO14001, thelabelling ofproducts wasnotpermitted.
29. TheForest Stewardship Council (FSC) hadbeendeveloped byavariety ofnon-governmental
organizations, buyers ofwood products andcertifiers. Ittookmore ofaperformance systems than
amanagement systems approach. Pending thedevelopment ofregional standards, andincontrast to
normal certification processes, certifiers interpreted thegeneral principles andcriteria rather than
certifying thatspecific standards hadbeenadhered to.Incontrast tothemanagement systems approach
ofISO14001 andCSA-Z808/9, theFSClabelled products from well-managed forests. Itsmarket
force waslargely derived from theformation ofbuyers groups thatrequired FSCorequivalent
certification. Hethought thatitraised some similar issues totheColombian experience.
30. TheEnvironmental Profile DataSheet (EPDS) provided detailed information tosophisticated
customers regarding theenvironmental attributes ofpulpandpaper products. Itwasavoluntary,
standardized, andthirdparty reporting formsimilar totheapproach ofnutritional labelling. TheEPDS
allowed customers tocompare suppliers withrespect totheenvironmental attributes theyjudged most
important. Customers, notthirdparties, determined which criteria wereimportant. Hethought that
suchanapproach wasmore attractive toindustry asitwasnotprescriptive, butrather leftdecisions
tocustomers.
31. Henoted thatEnvironmental Choice wasthefamiliar Type Ieco-label thathadbeendiscussed
extensively inboththeCTEandtheTBTCommittee. Incontrast toreport cardenvironmental labelsG/TBT/W/65
Page6
suchastheEPDS, Environmental Choice andother similar programmes ranked products within each
criteria, setthresholds, orapplied weighting, inorder toarrive atajudgement regarding whether they
wereenvironmentally preferable. Thelabelling criteria work programme waspublished semi-annually
anddraftcriteria were subject toa60daycomment period. Hesaidthatincontrast tomost other
eco-labelling programmes, Environmental Choice considered using equivalent testdataforthetest
methods specified initsproduct guidelines. Environmental Choice followed theprocedural and
substantive provisions oftheCode ofGood Practice, andhadbeennotified under G/TBT/Notif.96.190
of4July1996. Hewelcomed thenotifications ofother eco-labelling schemes, including those from
Japan andNewZealand, notifying theiracceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice (G/TBT/CS/N/73
and86).
32. Hesaidthatdetails oftheapproaches werecontained intheCanadian paper anditsannexes.
Thevariety oftheapproaches, andpreliminary policy considerations contained inparagraphs 43-54,
should contribute toamore indepth discussion ofthetrade policy aspects ofthese approaches atan
appropriate time. Hewelcomed theColombian paper onnational sectorial experience, andthought
thattheColombian experience incutflowers raised similar issues astheCanadian experience inforest
productssector.HeinvitedcontributionsbyotherMembersinordertofacilitatebroadbasedcomparison
anddiscussion ofthecurrent orpotential tradeimpact ofthevarious standards andlabelling approaches
outlined intheCanadian andother papers.
33. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities questioned iftheColombian andtheCanadian
papers would betaken upattheTBTCommittee meetings sincetheyhadbeendistributed asbothCTE
andTBTdocuments. Shenoted thatseveral delegations hadsuggested theacceptance oftheCode
ofGood Practice bybodies responsible foreco-labelling schemes, andrequested information about
thebodies thathadalready accepted theCode.
34. TheChairman recalled thatboththeColombian andCanadian papers hadbeentaken upat
thelastCTEmeeting. Hethought thatsince thecontributions werealsomade totheTBTCommittee
inthecontext ofinformation exchange under thework programme oftheTriennial Review, the
Committee would beinaposition torevert tothepapers atitsfuture meetings.
35. Therepresentative ofCanada noted thatboththeCanadian Government Environmental Choice
Programme, andtheprivate industry developed theEnvironmental Profile DataSheet Programme,
which wasdelivered byaprivate company. Canada hadnotified theEnvironmental Choice Programme
andwasholding discussions withtheprivate company onhowaprivate company could accept the
Code ofGood Practice (Annex 3oftheAgreement) developed byaninternational organization. Both
hisauthorities andtheprivate company didnotseeanyproblem withtheacceptance. However, there
were some procedural issues thatwould needtobedealtwith.
36. Therepresentative oftheUnited States welcomed theCanadian andColombian papers and
saidthattheywould provide auseful basis forfurther discussions. Sherecalled thattheCommittee
hadexchanged detailed views during theTriennial Review andhadagreed thatitwould beuseful to
furtherexchangeinformationonnationalexperiences.ShedrewattentiontotheUSpaperonConformity
Assessment Procedures, andsaidthatitprovided factual background natural onhowthesupplier 's
declaration ofconformity wasusedintheUnited States. Sherecalled thatduring thediscussions of
theTriennial Review, thesupplier 'sdeclaration ofconformity wasrecognized tobeatrade friendly
formofconformity assessment. Shenoted thatinhercountry, themethod wasusedbothforconformity
tovoluntary standards aswellastomandatory regulations (e.g., onmotor vehicles andmotor vehicle
equipments). Sheinvited other Members tostudy theUSpaper, andtoexchange views andexperiences
onhowthisapproach wasusedintheircountries.G/TBT/W/65
Page7
37. Referring totheUSpaper onTransparency inInternational Standards Development, shethought
thatitmight require morereflection intheCommittee, sinceitincluded aspecific proposal andprovided
theUSviewonthesubject. Shesaidthatthepaper concerned international standards andtheproblems
thatmight beassociated withstandards thatwould callforinternational bodies toprovide transparency
ontheiractivities andopportunities forparticipation. Shenoted thatunder theAgreement, government
andnon-governmental bodies areobliged toconduct theirstandard related activities inatransparent
manner. However, nosuchruleswereprovided forinternational bodies. Shesaidthatwhile Article 9
acknowledged Members ’responsibilities toensure thatinternational systems forconformity assessment
comply withtherelevant provisions oftheagreement (i.e., Articles 5and6),theAgreement didnot
containacorrespondingstatementofMembers’responsibilitywithrespecttoparticipationininternational
bodiesdevelopingstandards.ShethoughtthatitwouldbeusefulfortheCommitteetoconsiderprinciples
thatcould beusedtoguide international bodies developing standards. Shesuggested that,ifsupported
byMembers, herdelegation would offer, orwould work withother interested delegations, todevelop
adraftofsuchprinciples.
38. Therepresentative ofPakistan welcomed theUSpapers, inparticular theoneonTransparency
inInternational Standards Development which alsoaddressed thequestion ofparticipation of
WTO Members ininternational bodies preparing standards. Hethought thattheproposed USdraft
textontheprinciples tobeusedbyinternational bodies should receive further consideration toform
abetter appreciation oftheUSproposals.
39. Therepresentative ofIndia welcomed thecontributions from Colombia, Canada andthe
United States. Referring totheColombian andCanadian paper, herecalled thattheyhadbeenpresented
intheCTE, andtheresponses tothepapers hadshowed theimportance andsignificance oftheissues
highlighted, inparticular, when WTO Members wereengaged inaprocess ofbroadening anddeepening
theunderstanding oftheuseofenvironmental andother non-trade measures onmarket access. He
shared theconcerns expressed byBrazil regarding theimpact ofsuchmeasures onmarket access for
products ofinterest todeveloping countries. Hedrewattention toparagraph 11ofdocument G/TBT/5
which stated thatsuchmeasures hadapotential adverse impact ontrade. Hesaidthatsince thematter
waspresently being examined intheCTE, hisdelegation looked forward toreceiving input fromthe
CTE onwhatfurther work needed tobedoneinthecontext oftheTBTAgreement. Hereiterated
hisdelegation 'sposition wasthateco-label wasnotcovered bytheTBTAgreement.
40. Therepresentative ofMexico welcomed thecontributions from Colombia, Canada andthe
United States, andsaidthatshewould haveamore detailed response atfuture meetings. Shetook
noteoftheconcepts ofmutual recognition andequivalence intheareaofvoluntary labelling assuggested
intheColombian paper. Shenoted thatboththeColombian andCanadian papers showed theimportance
ofensuring theapplication oftheCode ofGood Practice tovoluntary standards. Shereiterated her
delegation 'sposition concerning theacceptance andeffective implementation oftheCode. Referring
totheUSpaper onTransparency inInternational Standards Development, shesaidthatherdelegation
wasinterested inexploring therelevant principles forinternational bodies which developed standards.
41. Therepresentative ofThailand welcomed theUSpapers, inparticular theoneontransparency.
Shesupported theapproach suggested bytheUnited States onproviding principles orguides for
international bodies thatdeveloped standards. Theprinciples needtoaddress theprocedures forreaching
consensus within those bodies.
42. TherepresentativeofAustraliawelcomedtheColombian,CanadianandUSpapers.Sheindicated
herdelegation 'sinterest intheUSpaper relating tointernational standards. Sheagreed thatthe
participation bydeveloping countries inthework ofinternational standardizing bodies wasanarea
ofconcern, andthought thatitmight beasmuch amatter oftransparency asthatofthetechnical content
oftheresulting standards. Shenoted thatinternational standardizing bodies hadlimited funding toG/TBT/W/65
Page8
assist theparticipation ofdeveloping countries. Shesuggested thatitmight beuseful fortheCommittee
torequest international bodies toadvise onthenumber oftechnical meetings thatwereheldinregions
withalargenumberofdevelopingcountries(e.g.,CentralAfrica,IndianSub-continent,SouthEastAsia,
South andCentral America), andcompare thefigure withthetotalnumber ofmeetings heldbythese
bodies. Theoutcome might encourage international standardizing bodies toholdmeetings inregions
which would facilitate fuller participation ofdeveloping countries. Shethought thatMembers could
encourage theirnational standardizing bodies toidentify international standards which might havea
trade impact onproducts ofspecial interest tothem, sothatwhen participating inthedevelopment
ofsuchinternational standards, thetrade implications ofsuchstandards would bebetter understood
byallparties. Thismight allow international standardizing bodies tousetheavailable funding tosupport
developing countries toparticipate instandards developments where thereweretradeimplications rather
thaninareas where there waslittleevidence oftrade effects.
43. Sheinvited other Members tobring specific examples totheCommittee where tradehadbeen
affected asaresult ofinternational standards, either because oftheabsence oroutdated content of
international standards, orwhere thedominant position ofanational orregional standard might act
asatechnical barrier totrade. Shesuggested thattheinformation could beforwarded totherelevant
international bodies forcomment.
44. Therepresentative ofJapan welcomed thecontributions from Colombia, Canada andthe
United States, andsaidthatthepapers would facilitate discussion resulting fromtheTriennial Review
process. Hesupported further work bytheUnited States ontransparency ininternational standards
development, andindicated hisdelegation 'sinterest incontributing inthisregard.
45. TherepresentativeofNewZealandrecalledthathisdelegationhadcommentedontheColombian
andCanadian papers atthelastCTE meeting. Hethought thattheapproach ofequivalency which
hadbeenhighlighted intheTriennial Review could beutilized insome oftheeco-labelling programmes
outlined inthetwopapers. Hethought thatfurther national experience andinformation exchange in
theareacould beuseful. Hewelcomed theUSpapers andsaidthattheoneonconformity assessment
procedures provided useful illustration onhowasupplier 'sdeclaration could facilitate trade. Regarding
thepaper ontransparency ininternational standards, heshared theview ofPakistan thatfurther
contributions fromtheUntied States onprinciples andprocedures forinternational bodies thatdeveloped
standards could assist future discussions intheCommittee.
46. TheChairman invited Members toexchange views onhowtheCommittee might organize its
work programme arising from theFirstTriennial Review.
47. Therepresentative ofMexico thought thattheTriennial Review constituted progress regarding
theunderstanding oftheAgreement, andhoped thatitwould serve toensure theimplementation of
theAgreement. Shesaidthattheresult oftheReview would leadtoasubstantive programme ofwork
fortheCommittee tobecarried outinthecourse of1998 andthefollowing twoyears. Shenoted
thatthework hadbeenclearly defined inthedocument G/TBT/5. Shewelcomed theprogress ofwork
atthepresent meeting tofollow upsome oftheelements which hadbeenidentified under theReview.
Shethought thattheexchange ofinformation andnational experiences wastheappropriate approach
atthisstage. Itwould provide abetter understanding oftheactual substance oftheissues.
48. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities thought thattheCommittee should takethe
opportunity ofthepresent meeting todetermine methods toorganize thework programme before
undertaken detailed discussions ontheissues. Itwould avoid asituation where work onsubstance
onlybetaken attheendoftheyear. Shethought thatitwasimportant thattheCommittee would address
onissues which appeared asapriority foritsnextmeeting, andwork would beorganized accordingly.
ShesaidthattheCommitteeshouldbeginbyidentifyingthepriorityissues.MemberswouldbeinformedG/TBT/W/65
Page9
ingoodtimeoftheitems ontheagenda ofsubsequent meetings sothattheycould prepare themselves
permanently, particularly onthetechnical issues. Besides thepoints reflected inthetwoUSpapers,
theEuropean Communities 'concerns were themeasures aimed atimproving theimplementation of
theAgreement andincreasing transparency. Shesuggested thatthetwoitems should bekeptonthe
agenda oftheCommittee meeting asfromthenextmeeting. These elements werecontained inSections
A,BandCofdocument G/TBT/5 -Implementation andAdministration oftheAgreement byMembers
under Article 15.2; Acceptance, Implementation andOperation oftheCode ofGood Practice; and
Operation andImplementation ofNotification Procedures, including those under Article 10.7.
49. Shesaidthatregarding work oninternational harmonization, there were twoelements:
international standards related toproducts, anddialogues between theCommittee andinternational
standardizing bodies. Shedrew attention toparagraphs 13,22(c) and32(b)ofdocument G/TBT/5
which reflected theneedfordialogue concerning therelationship between different standardizing bodies
atdifferent levels; preparation ofinternational standards; andspecial problems which might arise
fordeveloping countries. Shethought thatthese dialogues should belaunched rapidly.
50. Relating tointernational standards, shesuggested thatMembers should givethoughts tothe
ECpaper prepared fortheTriennial Review, andestablish aninventory ofinternational standards
developed bycertain international standardizing bodies. Thiscould gohandinhandwiththework
being doneinother international bodies. Inrespect tointernational guides onconformity assessment
procedures, shenoted thatseveral documents hadbeenprovided during theTriennial Review, and
atthisstage, itwasimportant toissue anewdocument. Shethought theReview process reflected
alackofunderstanding inthearea. Concerns hadbeenraised about thework oftheCommittee and
theTechnical Working Group toarrive atanagreement among Members ontheapplication ofcertain
international guides. Shethought thatitmight beeasier toreach consensus inthisareathaninother
areas oftheprogramme ofwork. Adecision recommending certain international guides onconformity
assessment procedures would allow acoherent application oftheAgreement andincrease mutual trust
which wasanessential goaloftheAgreement. Shesaidthatitwasapriority ofherdelegation, and
itwould serve asabasisfordiscussions onconformity assessment procedures andmutual recognition
agreements. Shethought thatsince theissue involved technical work, theCommittee would needto
draw onthecompetence ofspecial experts inthearea. Shesuggested thatwork should beorganized
insuchawaythattheappropriate technical assistance would beprovided.
51. Therepresentative ofCanada noted thattheTriennial Review hadprovided foragreater
understanding oftheAgreement andanidentification ofissues ofinterest toMembers. Itestablished
thecontext fordiscussions intheCommittee overthenextfewyears, andcalled foranational experience
sharing approach totheissues identified. Hethought thattheinitial phase ofthework programme
involved thepreparation byMembers oftheirnational experience intheissues ofparticular interest
tothem. Henoted thatCanada hadmade itsinitial contribution withrespect toitsforestry national
experience paper. Heindicated thathisdelegation would submit apaper ontheCanadian approach
toequivalency intechnical regulations drawing onanumber ofTBTnotifications. Hewelcomed the
papers presented byColombia andtheUnited States. Heinvited other Members toprepare similar
papers, drawing fromnational experiences, asamean toprovide theCommittee withinformation based
onpractical experiences forfuture discussions. Hestated thatallitems onthecontinuing work
programme should beconsidered equally important atthispoint oftime. Hethought thatastructured
approach should befollowed when asufficient number ofnational experience submission toallow sound
andin-depth discussions.
52. Therepresentative ofJapan shared theviewexpressed byCanada thattheCommittee could
consider howtoorganize discussions onlyafterreceiving anumber ofsubmissions from Members.
Heindicated hisdelegation 'sintention tocontribute inthisregard.G/TBT/W/65
Page10
53. Therepresentative ofPakistan supported theCanadian proposal fortheCommittee towaituntil
more papers were submitted bydelegations. Hethought thatitwould becounterproductive ifthe
Committee started immediately toprioritize issues without really knowing howindividual delegations
weregoing topursue theareas oftheirownpreference. Heagreed thatbased ontheinputs received,
theCommittee would eventually needtoorganize itswork tofacilitate more structured discussions.
54. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, shared the
views expressed byPakistan. Heagreed thattheCommittee should notplace priority inspecific areas
atthisstage, butapproach thework programme inabalanced fashion.
55. Therepresentative ofNewZealand shared theviewexpressed byCanada, Japan andPakistan
thatmore timewould beneeded foranexchange ofviews onpapers submitted before amore structured
work programme wastobeadopted. Hethought thatatthispoint, Members should beencouraged
tosubmitpapersontheissueshighlightedintheTriennialReviewinordertoensurein-depthdiscussions.
Heagreed thattheCommittee should focus onsubstantive discussions, andthought thatsetting priorities
without knowing thesubstance oftheissues could taketheCommittee intolongprocedural discussions.
56. Therepresentative ofIndiasupported theviewthatallelements oftheTriennial Review would
beputontheagenda offuture meetings, andthattheChairman would holdinformal consultations
ontheorganization ofthework programme. Hecould notagree tosetpriorities tocertain elements
atthisearlystage, andsaidthatafterreceiving national papers orinput fromMembers, theCommittee
might wishtofocus oncertain areas.
57. Hedrewattention toparagraph 7(b)ofdocument G/TBT/5, andinvited Members toexchange
information onthearrangements theyhadinplace toachieve aneffective implementation and
administration oftheprovisions oftheAgreement. Inthisregard, heproposed toinclude thefollowing
information: (a)whether testlaboratories indeveloping countries where substantive export takesplace
areaccredited; (b)whether testmethods usedbydeveloping country Members areaccepted, even
iftheyaredifferent fromtheadvanced methods available indeveloped countries; (c)number andtypes
ofassistance provided todeveloping countries while preparing technical regulations, standards and
conformity assessment procedures which maycreate obstacles totheexpansion anddiversification of
exports from developing countries; and(d)anytechnical assistance provided which hasresulted in
theincrease ordiversification ofexports from developing countries. Hethought thatthiskindof
information would helpMembers torespond andtofurther develop theCommittee 'swork.
58. Hesuggested activating thework under paragraph 13toseekinformation from international
standardizing bodies regarding theirprocedures toensure cooperation withtheirnational members.
Hethought thattheCommittee could usetheinformation toimplement thework under Section D,
inparticular, paragraph 22,ofG/TBT/5.
59. Therepresentative oftheUnited States urged Members totakeaflexible approach totheir
work. Sheagreed thatdiscussions should becontinued onallitems oftheTriennial Review. Shesaid
thatherdelegation wasnotinterested onlyintheelements thatwere included intheUSpapers
(G/TBT/W/63 and64). Shethought thattheelements discussed under theTriennial Review were
complex, andmore timewould beneeded inorder toreach acommon understanding onanumber
ofprovisions oftheAgreement andhow besttoimplement theAgreement domestically and
internationally.
60. Shewelcomed theapproach ofinformation exchange asindicated inparagraph 7(b)andother
sections ofG/TBT/5. Sheencouraged other Members toprovide information, including those relating
totechnical regulations, good regulatory practices, andregulatory reform. Shenoted thatanumber
ofgovernments hadundertaken economic reform programmes asaresult ofthefinancial crisis. TheG/TBT/W/65
Page11
reform involved changes inregulatory structures, procedures related tostandards andtheoperation
oftheTBTAgreement. These changes while positive, might notbeunder thenotification requirements
oftheAgreement. Shethought thatinformation onthese positive reform practices could bebeneficial
forotherMembers, andthattheCommittee could takestockoftheseactions. Shesupported theproposal
made byIndia thattheChairman would holdinformal consultations withMembers toseekamore
structured work programme, butshecautioned theCommittee nottogotoofartoofast.
61. Therepresentative ofColombia supported theapproach presented byCanada. Hethought
itwasimportant thatthediscussions oftheCommittee bedirected topractical substantive matters.
Herecalled thatthiswastheintention oftheColombian paper onflowers. Heinvited other Members
tosubmit papers concerning national experiences which would serve asabasisforfuture discussions.
62. Therepresentative ofMexico supported theflexible, equitable andfreeinformation exchange
approaches. Shethought thatnational experience exchange, ascontributed byColombia, Canada and
theUnited States, provided substantive information andabetter understanding oftheissues. Shenoted
thatthereweretwotypes ofinformation: (a)theprovision offactual information isunder paragraph 7
ofG/TBT/5; and(b)information concerning substantive cases ofcircumstances which would serve
asabasis fordiscussions. Shethought thatnational experiences could bepresented intheform of
written submissions ororally atmeetings.
63. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland welcomed thecontributions from Colombia, Canada and
theUnited States, andindicated thatapaper would bepresented byherdelegation. With respect to
thefuture work programme, shesupported theapproach suggested byCanada andthought that
exchanging national experiences wasuseful.
64. Therepresentative ofMorocco thought thatatthisstage, itwaspremature toidentify priorities.
Hesupported theapproach tostartwithanexchange ofinformation andnational experience. After
studying theinformation provided, theCommittee could decide onitsfuture working methods.
65. TheCommittee took noteofthestatements made. TheChairman encouraged further
contributions fromMembers either inwritten orother formats. HesaidthattheChairman would enter
intoconsultations withMembers onhowandwhen tostructure theWork Programme. Hesaidthat
allelements considered under theFirstTriennial Review would beincluded intheagenda ofthefuture
Committee meetings.
V. STATEMENTSONIMPLEMENTATIONANDADMINISTRATIONOFTHEAGREEMENT
66. Therepresentative ofPoland informed theCommittee thathiscountry continued itswork to
implement andmake operational thenational notification system. Thiswasbeing doneincoordination
withtherelevant obligations resulting frominternational andregional agreements. Theeffort aimed
atacquiring membership withtheEuropean standard organizations CEN/CENELEC/ETSI, and,at
thesame time, notneglecting standardization cooperation attheinternational level. Hesaidthathis
country appreciated ISO9000standard series asameasure forquality promotion andtradefacilitation.
Hethought thatthepromotion ofvoluntary standardization andconformity assessment procedures with
regardstoPN-EN/ISOstandardsandISOGuideswasessentialtoreducetechnicalbarrierstointernational
trade, andmight beanareaforfurther discussions.
67. Therepresentative ofCanada drew attention toaBelgium Royal Decree F.98-453
(21February1998),limitingthemarketing,manufactureanduseofsomehazardoussubstance-asbestos.
Henoted thatother delegations hadnotified theirmeasures onasbestos inaccordance withtherules
oftheTBTAgreement, andexpected Belgium todothesame. Hedrew attention toArticle 2.5of
theAgreement thatMembers adopting technical regulations which might haveasignificant effect onG/TBT/W/65
Page12
tradeofothermembersshould,uponrequestofanothermember,explainthejustificationforthetechnical
regulation interms ofprovisions ofArticles 2.2and2.4.Herecalled thathisauthorities hadmetwith
theBelgian government on3March 1998toexpress concerns withtherecently adopted Royal Decree,
andasked iftheDecree would benotified andjustified asprovided forunder Article 2.5.Hesought
areply fromtheBelgium delegation atthemeeting, oracommitment toprovide thejustification within
30days.
68. TherepresentativeofBrazilsaidthathiscountrywasoneofthecountrieswhichcouldbeaffected
bytheBelgian Royal Decree, andrequested thatthemeasure benotified andjustified assoonaspossible.
69. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthattheBelgian Royal Decree hadbeen
adopted on3February 1998andwould benotified inthenearfuture toallow opportunities forcomments
from other Members. Sheexplained thattheBelgian Decree included provisions aimed atapplying
aEuropean Communities 'legislation dated 1976, andalsoprovisions which werenotcovered bythe
Communities 'legislation. Shesaidthatthelatter partwould benotified totheCommittee under the
provisions oftheAgreement.
70. Therepresentative ofCanada drew attention totheprovisions oftheAgreement which stated
thatnotifications should bemade prior totheadoption oftechnical regulations.
71. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities drew attention toanarrangement reached
between Korea andtheUnited States in1995 which wasamemorandum ofunderstanding (MOU) to
increase market access forforeign passenger vehicles inKorea. Shenoted thattheMOU hadnotbeen
notified according toArticle 10.7oftheAgreement. Sheurged Members tomake notifications as
required under theprovision ofArticle 10.7. Shenoted thattheMOU provided theexemption from
testscarried outinKorea todetermine conformity withcertain UStechnical specifications inthearea
ofsafety, andthattheUSspecifications wereconsidered tobeequivalent tothose prevailing inKorea.
TheMOU specifically stipulated thatitwould beapplied onthebasis ofthe"most-favoured-nation"
clause. Shethought thatinthatcase, theexemption would beapplied tovehicles inconformity with
theUSspecifications, eveniftheywerenotmanufactured intheUnited States. Sherecalled thatsteps
hadbeentakenwiththeKoreanauthorities,andwelcomedtheresponsesreceived.However,shethought
thattheinformation provided didnotgivecomplete assurance thattheMFN clause would befully
applied. Sherequested fromKorea, additional reassurances andtheactual textofrelevant documents
inthenearfuture.
72. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthathewould convey tohisauthorities thestatement made
bytheEuropean Communities.
73. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesrecalledthatshehadraisedconcernsonMexican
requirements onlabelling ofindustrial products atthelastmeeting (G/TBT/M/9). Theregulations
included general andspecific regulations relating tothefoodandtextile sectors. Shesaidthatcontacts
hadbeenmade withtheMexican authorities andwelcomed thereplies received. However, further
information andprogress regarding theregulations would beneeded inorder toavoid anypossible
discriminatory treatment andunnecessary obstacles totrade. Relating tothat,herauthorities had
addressed anadditional series ofcomments toMexico. Shehoped thatthematter would beresolved
inafavourable manner inthenearfuture. Sherecalled thatinDecember 1997, herdelegation had
made comments oncertain Mexican regulations onlabelling ofleather products, andwaswaiting for
aresponse from Mexico.
74. TherepresentativeofMexicoinformedtheCommitteethatherauthoritieshadalreadyresponded
tosome ofthequestions raised bytheEuropean Communities. Sheexplained thatMexican Official
Standards NOM-050-SCFI-1994 andNOM-051-SCFI-1994 ofwhich theEuropean Communities hadG/TBT/W/65
Page13
raised concerns, wereprepared toestablish thetradeinformation tobedisplayed ondomestic andforeign
products fortheinformation ofMexican consumers. ADecision hadbeenadopted bytheMinistry
ofTrade andIndustrial Development (SECOFI) tofacilitate compliance byimporters with the
above-mentioned regulations (published intheDiario Oficial delaFederación of24February 1997).
TheDecision hadnotbeennotified because itwasnota"technical regulation" butavoluntary instrument
which wasnotsubject toanynotification requirements under theAgreement.
75. ShesaidthatthetwoMexican Official Standards wereconsistent withinternational standards.
Standard NOM-050 (Commercial information -general provisions forproducts) wasbased onISO
Guides 14,37and41.Standard NOM-051 (General specifications forthelabelling ofprepackaged
foodstuffsandnon-alcoholicbeverages)wasconsistentwithCodexstandards:CODEXSTAN107-1981
and1-1985, CAC/GL1-1979, CAC/GL2-1985 andother CODEX Guidelines -PartII.
76. ReferringtothecommentsmadebythedelegationoftheEuropeanCommunitiesthattheMexican
standards inquestion werediscriminatory andcreated barriers totrade, shepointed outthatthelabelling
requirements established bythese Standards hadbeenestablished inaccordance withtheprinciples
andrules aslaiddown under theTBTAgreement.
77. Regarding theResolution published intheOfficial Journal on25February 1997, amending
Mexican Official Standard -NOM-004-SCFI-1994 (Commercial Information -Labelling ofTextiles,
Articles ofClothing andAccessories), shesaidtheResolution hadentered intoforceonthedayfollowing
itspublication, because itdidnotaddanynewrequirements totheMexican Standard amended. It
wasintended toimprove thedrafting oftheStandard anditsapplication clearer. Itdidnotoblige
producers tomake changes tothelabelling ofproducts.
78. WithrespecttotheMexicanStandardNOM-020-SCFI-1997(Commercialinformation-labelling
ofnatural hides andtanned skins andartificial leather having theappearance ofnatural leather, of
footwear andleather goods, andofother articles made from these materials), shenoted thatithad
beennotified totheCommittee (TBT/Notif.97.611). Shesaidthatsince itwasthefirsttimethatit
hadbeenreferred tobytheEuropean Communities, andshewould transmit thecomments made to
herauthorities.
79. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitieswelcomedtheinformationprovidedbyMexico
andsaidthatshewould come backafterreceiving responses tothenewcomments made.
80. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
81. Therepresentative ofJapan informed theCommittee thattheJapanese Standard Association
would hostaWTO/ISO/JIS Regional Seminar inautumn 1998, inviting participants fromgovernments
andstandardizing bodies ofJapan'sneighbouring countries. TheSeminar would bepartofthetechnical
assistance programme aimed atincreasing theunderstanding oftheTBTAgreement andISOactivities.
Hesaidthatdetails oftheSeminar would beannounced nearer tothedateoftheseminar.
82. Theobserver ofFAOinformed theCommittee ofanewpublication "FAO Technical Assistance
intheUruguay Round Agreements". Hesaidthatitcontained technical assistance programmes related
tofood, agriculture andtrade infoodandagricultural products forFAO Member countries, many of
which were alsoWTO Members.
83. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.G/TBT/W/65
Page14
VII. ELECTION OFOFFICER
84. TheCommittee elected Mr.OttoTh.Genee (Netherlands) Chairman for1998.
85. TheChairman suggested thatthenextmeeting oftheCommittee beheldsome timebefore
thesummerbreak.HenotedthattheCommitteehaddecidedthatregularmeetingsofpersonsresponsible
forinformation exchange, including persons responsible toenquiry points would beheldonabiennial
basis(G/TBT/1/Rev.5). Heproposed thatsuchameeting beheldintheautumn thisyear. Hewould
holdinformal consultations ontheexact dates ofthefollowing meetings.
86. Henoted that,inconnection withtheMinisterial Conference, ithadbeendecided atthemeeting
oftheGeneral Council on10December 1997, thatthereport oftheGeneral Council tothe1998
Ministerial Conference would consist ofthe1997 Annual Reports oftheGeneral Council andits
subsidiary bodies together withabriefupdate report oftheGeneral Council concerning developments
inthefirstmonths of1998. TheSecretary toeachCommittee hadbeenrequested toprepare, in
consultation withtheChairperson ofthatbody, abriefaccount reflecting work accomplished since
December 1997inthatsubsidiary body. Thisinformation would formpartofthebrieforalstatement
oftheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods made attheGeneral Council meeting scheduled
for24April 1998.
87. TheCommitteetooknoteofthestatementsmade,andagreedtorequesttheSecretariattoprepare
abriefupdate report, informing theCouncil forTrade inGoods ofthefirstTBTCommittee meeting
andthefactthattheCommitteehadstarteditsfollow-upworkprogrammearisingfromtheFirstTriennial
Review oftheOperation andImplementation oftheAgreement under Article 15.4.
__________