   
  
G/TBT/W/761  
 
18 November 2021  
(21-8723) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: English  
 
 
INDONESIA – HALAL PRODUCT ASSURANCE LAW NO. 33 OF 2014 AND ITS 
IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS ( STC ID 502)  
TECHNICAL STATEMENT  BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE COMMITTEE ON  
TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE  
10–12 NOVEMBER 2021  
The following communication, dated 15 November 2021, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
The United States acknowledges Indonesia 's goal to provide reliable, relevant information regarding 
the halal  integrity of certain products to consumers and we have sought to work with Indonesia over 
the last seven years to ensure that objective is achieved in a way that is consistent with Indonesia 's 
WTO obligations. Our comments on Indonesia 's Notifications on Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 
of 2014 and its implementing measures, including Government Regulation No. 39/2021, are as 
follows:  
 
1  TRANSPARENCY  
1.1.  We respectfully remind Indonesia of the obligation to notify draft measures to the Committee 
before they ta ke effect, allow a reasonable time for stakeholder comments, and take such comments 
into account before draft measures are adopted and implemented.  Unfortunately, we continue to 
see a pattern with regard to halal decrees and regulations, whereby measures are finalized without 
an opportunity for stakeholder comment.  
1.2.  For example, we have recently learned of two additional aspects of the implementation of the 
Halal Law and Government Regulation 39 of 2021 (GR39/2021) that have recently been signed into 
effect  and have not yet been notified:  
a. Ministry of Finance Regulation 57 of 2021, which includes fees for halal certification and 
accreditation; and  
b. BPJPH  Decree 57 of 2021, which appears to be the ministerial implementing regulation for 
the Halal Law.  
1.3.  By failing to notify these measures, Indonesia has missed an opportunity to address 
stakeholder concerns before these measures went into effect.  Taking int o account stakeholder 
concerns is an important element of good regulatory practice to help avoid the creation of 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade. We ask that Indonesia notify these measures to the 
Committee as soon as possible and consider hal ting their implementation until stakeholder 
comments can be taken into account.  
1.4.  Regarding these two unnotified measures, we ask Indonesia to clarify the relationship between 
BPJPH Decree 57 of 2021 and GR39/2021.  Does BPJPH Decree 57 supersede aspects of GR39/2021? 
BPJPH Decree 57 also lists additional product categories in its scope that are not contained in the 
Decree notified as G/TBT/N/IDN/134. Can Indonesia clarify the relationship between these 
measures?  G/TBT/W/761  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.5.  Article 8 of Ministry of Finance Regulation 57  of 2021 establishes that halal certification fees 
for goods and services for large businesses and foreign businesses may be 150% higher than the 
baseline fee. Our understanding is that Indonesia will provide further guidance to stakeholders on 
this fee, t o explain the range they may have to pay and how the conformity assessment process 
might adjust this fee. Please confirm.  
2  GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT MOU  
2.1.  Concerning the requirement for a government -to-government MOU for recognition of foreign 
halal organizati ons, the United States government does not directly oversee halal certification, but 
instead relies on halal certifying bodies to certify that U.S. halal exports conform with Indonesia 's 
halal requirements.  Considering that these halal certifying bodies h ave been functioning this way 
for decades, can Indonesia please explain why such an MOU is necessary? Can Indonesia please 
confirm it will continue to accept goods imported from countries absent a 
government -to-government MOU? Can Indonesia also assure the  United States that goods coming 
from a non -MOU country will not be treated less favourably than goods from those countries with 
an MOU?  
3  ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS  
3.1.  Can Indonesia elaborate on how GR39/2021 and its related implementing regulations 
supersede pre viously instituted measures? For example, BPOM Technical Regulation 30 of 2020 is 
due to enter into force in December of this year and has labelling requirements for cosmetics 
products that contain or may have come into contact with pork. We ask Indonesia to delay 
implementation of this measure, until it is notified to the WTO for comment and Indonesia aligns it 
with the new halal labelling law.  
3.2.  The United States is also highly concerned that the measure would mandate that halal and 
non-halal products be se parated across the supply chain, including storage, transportation 
distribution and sales. These requirements will be extremely burdensome and we question their 
necessity, as product packaging, traceability, and other means are available to ensure the inte grity 
of halal products. The United States requests that Indonesia remove these requirements, as 
contained within GR 39/2021. Can Indonesia explain why it has not worked with industry on 
developing procedures or requirements by product type, as originally envisioned? For example, 
requirements for the management of fresh food will likely differ significantly from requirements 
relating to many of the other products to be certified.  
3.3.  We have also noted that requiring each individual business operator to employ  a halal 
supervisor is an overly burdensome requirement raising serious concerns about its impact on 
international trade. A likely outcome of this requirement is that small and medium -sized enterprises 
that cannot afford to retain a halal supervisor will i nstead choose not to do business in Indonesia.  
4  HALAL MANDATORY CERTIFICATION LIST CONTAINED IN G/TBT/N/IDN/134  
4.1.  The United States thanks Indonesia for the recent notification of the Decree of the Minister of 
Religious Affairs of Indonesia regarding Types o f Products and Consumer Goods Products Mandatory 
to be Halal Certified, to the WTO on 2 July 2021. The United States submitted comments via the 
Enquiry Point on 23 August 2021, along with numerous trade associations that had questions and 
concerns about th e measure.  
4.2.  We were disappointed to learn that the draft was finalized and signed as Ministry of Religious 
Affairs Decree No. 748 of 2021 on 29 June 2021, prior to notification to this Committee, entering 
into force 1 January 2022. We continue to see a patt ern with regard to halal decrees and regulations, 
whereby measures are finalized without meaningful opportunities for stakeholder comment. The 
recommended comment period for proposed regulations is 60 to 90 days after notification and the 
reasonable interv al for implementation is six months after publication of the final measure.  
4.3.  The Decree seeks to significantly expand the scope of products and services for which halal -
certification would be required. While the United States supports the objective of Indonesia to 
provide Indonesian consumers access to halal products that meet the necessary criteria, many of G/TBT/W/761  
 
- 3 - 
 
  these products and services have never before been subject to halal certification anywhere in the 
world.  
4.4.  The expansion of halal certification, especially as it relates to service providers, is a significant 
departure  from intern ationally used and accepted guides and recommendations.  Can Indonesia 
explain the reason for such a significant expansion in the scope of the types of products and services 
that will require halal certification?  
4.5.  Without additional guidance and clarificati on from Indonesia, these new halal regulations will 
likely cause unpredictability, higher overall product costs, compliance challenges, less product 
availability for Indonesian consumers, and could create serious trade concerns.  
4.6.  For example, the list of p roducts requiring halal certification include broad "catch -all" categories 
that list "other products ". These broad "catch -all" categories create a great deal of uncertainty, as 
regulators may decide at any time that any product not currently listed in the draft Decree, but 
otherwise falling within one of the broad categories, may require certification.  
4.7.  What is the envisioned timeline for the development of implementing regulations or guidelines 
for each listed product category, and will Indonesia conduct st akeholder consultations prior to issuing 
such implementing regulations or guidelines?  Can Indonesia confirm that it will further clarify the 
scope of products requiring halal certification, including whether Indonesia will provide guidance on 
how will man ufacturers determine when "other products " are affected?  
4.8.  While we understand implementation of the Halal Product Assurance Law began in October of 
2019, given the broad range of products included in this scoping regulation, we again urge Indonesia 
to provi de enough time for implementation so that Indonesia can accredit a sufficient number of 
certification bodies to certify the products included in the measure and to allow time for companies 
to adapt their products or methods of production.  
4.9.  We remain concer ned that if Indonesia does not allow sufficient time to develop and implement 
guidance on how to certify the expanded list of halal products and services, and expand the number 
of international halal certifiers approved to certify for export to Indonesia, there will be insufficient 
capacity to perform the required certifications, thereby negatively impacting product entry to the 
Indonesian market.  
5  CONCLUSION  
5.1.  Many of the other concerns we have raised at past meetings have not been sufficiently 
addressed by I ndonesia. For example, we have questions about: why all genetically engineered 
products are still required to be certified when there is an existing authority stating it does not need 
to be halal certified; justifications for requiring all products to cert ify as halal or non -halal, even 
when no halal claims are made; requiring color -coding of haram ingredients in non -halal products; 
and Indonesia 's intended process and timeline for renewing existing accreditations and adding new 
U.S.-based halal certifiers.  
5.2.  Given these questions and the uncertainty and potential trade -restrictiveness of this measure, 
we request Indonesia to suspend these measures and the implementation schedule until Members ' 
comments have been taken into account.  
5.3.  After the implementing regulations have been revised, the United States requests that 
Indonesia renotify the measures to the WTO TBT Committee  and provide at least a sixty -day period 
for Members to comment on the proposed measure and for the comments to be taken into account 
prior to implementation, as per its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to 
Trade.  
5.4.  We remain committed to  working bilaterally with Indonesia to address the aforementioned 
concerns and to ensure that Indonesia 's halal measures do not create unnecessary obstacles to 
international trade.  
__________  