RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/M/20
29 August 2000
(00-3389)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 JULY 2000
Chairman:  Mr. John ADANK (New Zealand)
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade held its twenty-first meeting on 21 July 2000.
2. The following agenda, contained in WTO/AIR/1341 was adopted:
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE
OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE
INTERNATIONAL LABORATORY ACCREDITATION COOPERATION(ILAC) AND THE BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES
(BIPM) ......................................................................................................................... ..............2
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEM ENT ...................................................................................................................... ....2
III. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON THE WORKSHOP ON TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE TB T AGREEM ENT.............................................................................8
IV. PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 15.4 ................................................................................................................... .....11
V. OTHER BU SINESS............................................................................................................... .21G/TBT/M/20
Page 2
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE INTERNATIONAL
LABORATORY ACCREDITATION COOPERATION (ILAC) AND THE BUREAU
INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM)
3. The Chairman drew attention to document  G/TBT/W68/Add.3, a communication from the
ILAC, informing the Committee of ILAC's decision to withdraw its application for observer status in
the Committee.  However, ILAC had indicated its intention to come back to it at a later stage.
4. Referring to document G/TBT/W/135 (of 15 June 2000), a request by BIPM, he sought
Members' views on granting observer status to this intergovernmental organization of the
Metre Convention.
5. The representative of Canada said that more time was needed to seek instruction from his
capital, and requested to come back to it at the next meeting.
6. The representative of the United States (US) clarified her delegation's position on the observer
status of ILAC.  She explained that, currently, the WTO had no agreed procedures for observer status
of non-governmental organizations, of which ILAC was one.  Until such time that Members agreed on
the procedures, her delegation would continue to oppose that request.  She said that it had nothing to
do with the work of ILAC since the US participated actively in that organization, and she welcomedthe contributions ILAC made at the Symposium and Workshop of the Committee.
7. The Committee agreed to return to the requests made by BIPM and OIV at its next meeting.
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
8. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN countries, recalled that at
the past few meetings, a number of delegations had raised concerns about the draft
European Directive on Waste from Electrical an d Electronic Equipment (WEEE);  and the use of
Hazardous Substances in the Electrical and Electronic Equipment (HSEEE).  Despite this,
on 13 June 2000, the European Commission had adopted these two Directives.
9. She believed the draft Directive was arbitrary, trade restrictive and unjustified.  By adopting
this proposal, the European Union (EU) had abrogated the responsibility of its member States to
provide waste disposal services, and passed it on to producers, including non-EU producers.  The
expense in compliance with the Directive would have great negative impact on the production costs of
ASEAN manufacturers, particularly small and medium-size industries. The result could be a total
elimination of these producers from the EU market, and she asked if that was the intention of the
Directive.  She urged the European Communities (EC) to give further thought to the proposal and take
into account the comments made, since the issue could be dealt with by EU member States withoutthe involvement of non-EU third parties.
10. She sought clarification on the following questions:  (i)  What would be the next step of the
Directive?  (ii) How does EU see the practical implementation of the Directive?  (iii) Does every
producer have to set up its own waste disposal plants?  If not, how will burden sharing among
producers in the setting up of waste disposal plants be done?  Would it be by market share orpro rata ?  She believed that either way would be unfair to small manufacturers.  (iv) Are there
cost-effective measures and readily available technology for waste recovery?  Have these measures
been proven viable?  Will the cost be prohibitive?  Are the recovery targets realistic?  (v) Is the scope
of the EEE products covered under the Directive too broad?G/TBT/M/20
Page 3
11. Referring to the EC proposal on the restriction on the use of certain substances in electrical
and electronic equipment (such as lead, cadmium, chromium, halogenated substances and certain
flame-retardants), she believed that it also had pot ential negative trade impact, particularly on ASEAN
small and medium-size producers.  She asked if any replacement technology was available on
commercially acceptable terms, and, if the technology was patented, would it entail  higher cost?  Itwas her experience that substitutes, if available, were expensive and would reduce the
competitiveness of producers using them.
12. She felt that the draft Directives which had ramifications beyond the European Union were
being propagated without due thought to the effects on third parties, in particular to SMEs of
developing countries.  She recalled Article 12.3 of the Agreement which stipulated that "Members
shall, in the preparation and application of technical regulations, standards and conformity procedures,
take account of the special development, financial and trade needs of developing country Members,with a view to ensuring that such measures do not create unnecessary obstacles to exports from
developing country Members".  She urged the EU to take this into account, and consider other
alternatives that would not constitute obstacles to trade.   She reminded the EC to notify the draft
Directives under Article 2.9, so as to allow other Members, especially developing country Members,
adequate time to make comments at a stage when amendments of the drafts could still be introduced.
13. The representative of Japan shared the concerns expressed by ASEAN countries.  While his
delegation agreed with the EC on the necessity to reduce the usage of hazardous substances, Japan
had concern about the technological feasibility to  comply with the two EC  Directives, and would
follow closely on their further development.
14. The representative of Korea associated his delegation with the concerns expressed.  While
Korea understood the objectives of the EC Directives, given their potential impact on trade, he felt
that the matter should be addressed with careful consideration in consultation with producing
countries.  He was particularly concerned with the EC/WEEE Directive which shifted the
responsibility of waste collection to manufacturers.  He felt that foreign companies would be
discriminated against, since the collection of waste would be more burdensome and expensive forproducers located outside of the EU.
15. With regard to the restriction of use of certain substances, he believed that scientific risk
assessment should be conducted prior to the imposition of the ban so that its justification could be
provided.  He felt that the ban was potentially inconsistent with the TBT Agreement, if at the time of
its imposition, no alternative way to produce equivalent EEE was available.  He concluded that, until
scientific risk assessment was conducted and alternative technologies became available to the
majority of Members, the environmental concern of the EC should be addressed in a less traderestrictive manner.  He informed the Committee that his authorities had high-level bilateral
consultations with the EC, and would continue to monitor the development of the Directives.
16. The representative of Canada recalled that his delegation had raised concerns about the EC
draft Directives on WEEE and HSEEE as well as the one on nickel-cadmium batteries.  He shared
many of the points made by ASEAN.  Canada supported the underlying objectives of theWEEE Directives, i.e. to prevent waste from EEE by means of increased re-use, recycling and
recovery of such waste, as well as to reduce the risks of environmental impact associated with its
treatment and disposal.  However, Canada would monitor closely the implementation of the Directive
in order to ensure that it did not create any unnecessary barriers to trade.
17. He noted that the EC Directives had not been notified, and indicated that more information on
the HSEEE Directive was needed in order to understand the rationale that led to a ban on the use of
certain non-ferrous metals in a broad range of equipment.  He sought the reason why the EC had
determined that sound recycling and re-use policies, which were less trade-restrictive measures, couldG/TBT/M/20
Page 4
not achieve the same environmental and health objectives.  He recalled that Canada had asked the EC
to provide the scientific studies for the justification of the measure, but regretted that they had not
been received.  He made a further request for such information.  He also questioned the soundness of
the EU's risk assessment with respect to the use of those metals.  He concluded that in the absence of
such information, Canada could assume that the EC draft Directive decision had been reached withouta comprehensive and scientifically sound risk assessment.  He reiterated the importance of providing
information in a timely manner, when a risk assessment had been done, to allow trading partners to
consider the issue, i.e. how it related to environment and health protection, so that potential trade
disputes could be minimized.  He raised the concern that the Directive, if implemented, would create
unnecessary barriers to trade.  The requirement to reduce or eliminate the use of certain materials
would create significant adverse trade effect on countries, such as Canada, that produced such
substances.  He urged the EC to consider the negative trade impact of the proposal on other Members,and to consult with the affected industries (including manufacturers of electrical and electronic
products and producers of non-ferrous metals), other stakeholders, as well as interested governments
to ensure consistency of the Directive with  WTO Agreements, including the TBT Agreement.
18. He also believed that the EC intended to move forward with the ban on the use of
nickel cadmium in batteries and accumulators in the absence of a formal risk assessment.  The ban, ifadopted, might create unnecessary barriers to trade for manufacturers of electrical and electronic
products that rely on nickel-cadmium batteries as a power source.  He urged the EC to wait for the
results of the risk assessment on cadmium being conducted by the Belgium Government, in order to
minimize the possibility that the proposed measure would be inconsistent with the Agreement.   He
recalled that OECD Members had endorsed recycl ing as the preferred method to deal with the
environmental and health concerns associated with nickel-cadmium batteries and accumulators.  He
urged the EC to consult with other Members and stakeholders to consider alternatives to the ban, such
as to increase the rate of recycling – a less trade-restrictive measure that would achieve the same
environmental and health objectives.
19. The representative of Egypt associated her delegation with the statements made by the
previous speakers, and requested the EC to  provide answers to the questions posed.
20. The representative of the United States also associated herself with the statements made, and
recalled her delegation's intervention at the previous meetings on the EC draft Directives.  She
expressed concern in particular with respect to the lack of transparency in their development.  She
sought an understanding on the rationale of the measures and their relationship to the environmental
and health objectives, so that their consistency with international obligations could be better assessed.
In the absence of information from the EC on risk assessments relating to the proposed ban and safetyof possible substitutes, her delegation's questions remained.
21. She believed that the proposal on WEEE would impose financial and bureaucratic burdens on
manufacturers, especially those that lacked a physical presence in Europe.  She urged the EC to work
with other stakeholders to ensure an environmentally beneficial and economically efficient approach.
22. She also recalled her delegation's concerns expressed at past meetings on the EC draft
Directive on nickel-cadmium batteries and products powered by such batteries, in particular with
respect to the lack of transparency in its development.  She believed that the ban would have a
significant impact on trade, and that the method endorsed by OECD Members on collection and
recycling of nickel-cadmium batteries might be a viable, less trade restrictive alternative.  She sought
further clarification on the proposal, scientific basis for the ban, as well as information on the riskassessment conducted.  She urged the EC to work with all stakeholders to consider alternative
measures with less trade impact to achieve its environmental objectives.G/TBT/M/20
Page 5
23. The representative of Australia also associated her delegation with the previous speakers on
the draft EC Directives, and in particular the concerns raised about their potential trade impacts.  She
was interested in hearing the EC's responses to the ASEAN questions.
24. The representative of the European Communities confirmed that in June, the Commission had
adopted the proposals on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and on the Restriction of the Use
of Certain Hazardous Substances  in Electrical and Electronic Equipment.  These two proposals would
follow the procedures for discussions and adoption at the European Council and Parliament.  He
informed the Committee that they were still at an early stage of adoption process within the EC, and
the date for entering into force was planned for the year 2008.  The Commission was working on the
document concerning nickel-cadmium in batteries, which had not been adopted as a proposal by the
Commission.  For this reason, he felt that it was too early to discuss this issue at the present meeting.
25. He believed that the proposed measures were necessary from a human health and
environment perspective, since those substances, mainly heavy metals, could accumulate in waste
streams and human blood.  His authorities had to take certain measures to protect human health
(mainly of workers) and the environment, and at the same time, not to exclude small and medium-size
manufacturers.  He informed the Committee that there would be a reassessment of the situation and
possible alternatives at mid-term in the year 2004.  He believed that the requirements did notdiscriminate against foreign producers, were based on scientific evidence, in proportion with the
fulfilment of objectives to protect health and the environment, in line with international trade laws and
TBT consistent.  He informed the Committee that notifications of the drafts had just been made, and
the text was available on the internet site.  He invited other Members to make comments on the drafts
at this early stage of adoption process when their modifications and amendments were possible.
26. The representative of Brazil drew attention to an EC notification G/TBT/Notif.00/289 related
to a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals, as well as the labelling of beef
and beef products.  It introduced requirements to indicate on labels information related to:  (i) the
country of origin of the animal;  (ii) the slaughterhouse;  (iii) the de-boning hall;  and (iv) the category
of the animal from which the beef was derived.  She sought clarification whether for beef exported tothe Community, only the two first requirements would apply.
27. The representative of the European Communities said that he would respond after consulting
his authorities.
28. The representative of Canada informed the Committee that his authorities were reviewing the
EC beef labelling system with a view to de termine whether an intervention would be made.
29. He recalled that at the last meeting, his delegation had raised concerns about New Zealand's
ban on the importation of trout.  New Zealand had explained that the ban was temporary, forconservation reasons.  It was due to the fact that there was currently no commercial sale of trout in the
New Zealand domestic market.  There was a concern that the commercial sale of trout might lead to
conservation difficulties, threatening the sustainability of wild trout fishery.  However, he felt that
New Zealand had not adequately explained how the importation of trout would threaten the
sustainability of New Zealand's wild trout fishery.  If this was a domestic enforcement issue,New Zealand should be able to deal with the matter in a way that did not prohibit trade.
30. He noted that on 28 June 2000, New Zealand ha d extended the ban for a further nine months,
to 7 April 2001.  By then, the temporary ban would have been in effect for two and a half years, with
no guarantee that it would not be further extended.  He considered the ban to be inconsistent with
New Zealand's WTO obligations, and requested that the ban be removed without further delay.G/TBT/M/20
Page 6
31. The representative of New Zealand responded that the ban was a temporary one, and the
Canadian concerns would be reported back to his authorities so that further explanation could be
provided.  He noted that his government attached hi gh priority to resolve this issue within the next
nine months, and invited Canada and other interested Members to continue consultations with them.
32. The representative of the United States raised concerns about the EU new reference standard
(EN 61000-3-2) under the Electromagnetic Capability (EMC) Directive.  She said that the new
standard, effective on 1 January 2001, would impose mandatory limits on low frequency emissions
(LFE) from information technology products and all ot her electronic equipment.  The EC had stated
that the requirement was aimed at protecting public electricity distribution networks from LFE
interference.  However, she felt that the new standard would impose strict requirements for
information technology products.
33. She recalled that in previous consultation with the EC, US industry had challenged the
scientific justification for this standard, and suggest ed that less restrictive and lower-cost alternative
approaches should be examined.  She noted that the new standard would require US companies to
redesign their products for the EU market, and that w ould cost billions of dollars, impede transatlantic
trade as well as raise costs to European consumers.  The new EC standard differed significantly from
other market-driven voluntary industry standards e.g ., in its scope and content.  It was determined by
the mandate of the Commission in the context of legislative harmonization of electromagnetic
compatibility among EU member States.  She felt that  the EC should make efforts to ensure that the
standard would involve minimum overall costs and provide flexibility.  Her delegation had requested
the EC to delay its implementation for several year s, while relevant standards could be developed
within the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
34. The representatives of Canada and Thailand  associated their delegations with the statement
made by the US.
35. The representative of Malaysia shared the US concerns on the possibility of higher costs on
IT products as a result of the EC standard, especially for producers from developing countries.  She
requested the EC for clarification and to consider low cost alternatives that would minimize the tradeimpact on IT products.
36. The representative of the European Communities believed that EN61000-3-2 was based on an
IEC international standard.  He further explained that the standard under the EU approach, was not
mandatory, but voluntary, and there was an alternative rule, i.e. the technical file route, that could be
used under the Directive to demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements.  The
requirements mentioned in the standard were the same for the European industry as the others.  He
indicated that he would come back with further clarification.
37. The representative of the United States welc omed the information provided from the EC.
However, she linked this issue with the Committee's discussions on international standards, and felt
that this might be the case when an international standard did not reflect the interests of all Members.
The IEC standard preparation had been dominated by the European utilities, developed by
CENELEC,  and there was no process under way to revise it.  She noted that the US industry had alsoconcerns over the EC's suggested alternative, and indicated her intention to come back to it in the
future.
38. The representative of the European Communities recalled that at previous meetings, his
delegation had raised concerns on the Japanese legislation related to fishery vessel engines.  He
understood that the basic aim of the law was to protect fishery stocks through a control of enginepower of fishery vessels, on the basis that the more powerful the engine, the more fish could be
brought to shore.  The engine output was linked to a certain calculation index, i.e. the engineG/TBT/M/20
Page 7
performance index (EPI).  However, he believed that over the years engine technology had developed,
engines were produced with a higher output, and tr ue engine power could no longer be shown by the
EPI index, but by relevant ISO standards.  He found the Japanese legislation complicated (i.e. its
scope as well as its objective to protect natural resources), and that its conformity assessment
procedure was difficult for manufacturers, including the European ones.
39. The representative of Japan informed the Committee that his government had established a
study group because of the deregulation process in Japan, and also in response to an EC request.  The
study group is composed of representatives from the fishery industry, engine manufacturers (both
domestic and foreign) as well as the academic world.  Japan was ready to consider the comments
made by European industries.  For reasons of transparency, his delegation was prepared to provide
further information about the study group to the EC.
40. The representative of New Zealand recalled that his delegation had raised concerns about a
Japanese mandatory country of origin labelling scheme on perishable food and beverages
(G/TBT/Notif.99/668) on previous occasions.  The representative of Japan had indicated the
willingness to take into account New Zealand's concerns on the costs for compliance, and to provide
further explanation on the objectives of the labelling requirements.
41. The representative of Japan said that he could not provide additional information at the
moment, but reiterated that the labelling requirement had been developed as a result of consumers'
demand for information on a number of commodities.  The measure, designed to protect consumers'
interests, was imposed on all perishable food (both imported or domestically produced), and did not
give any advantage to domestic producers nor discriminate against imported products.
42. The representative of the United States drew attention to the Indonesian Consumer Protection
Regulation No. 8 of 1999 that would take effect this month.  She noted that even though the measure
would have a significant trade impact, it had not been notified.  Therefore, other Members did not
have the chance to comment, and business did not have sufficient time to adjust to the new
requirements.  She raised concern about certain requirements of the regulation (e.g. the use of local
language on labelling), and felt that there could be a simpler way.  She urged Indonesia to notify themeasure, and delay its implementation pending comments made by other Members.
43. The representative of Mexico drew attention to notification G/TBT/Notif.00/5 of the US in
relation to tuna product labelling.  She recalled the US representative had clarified that the measure
was a voluntary standard, and thus should not have been notified under Article 2.9.  She sought
clarification as to whether a corrigendum would be made to that notification.  She indicated that her
delegation was studying the issue, and would come back to it at the next meeting.
44. The representative of Japan drew attention to a Korean notification dated 13 June 2000
(G/TBT/Notif.00/284) concerning safety of electric appliances.  He appreciated the change of system
in Korea which would harmonize the Korean system with international practice.  He sought
clarification on whether the date of adoption and entry into force was on 20 August 2000 (as indicated
in the notification) or 1 July 2000 (as informed in his capital).
45. The representative of Korea clarified that the date of adoption and entry into force
was 1 July 2000, and a corrigendum of the notification would be circulated shortly.
46. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/TBT/M/20
Page 8
III. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON THE WORKSHOP ON TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
47. The Chairman recalled that a Workshop on Technical Assistance and Special and Differential
Treatment in the context of the TBT Agreement had been held on 19-20 July 2000.  A summary
report of the Workshop had been prepared by him on his own responsibility (Annex 1) and more
detailed reports summarizing the discussions and proposals in the different Sessions would be
finalized by moderators (paper Job No. 4849).  He thanked the moderators from the delegations of,
Australia, Canada, India and the Netherlands for their efforts.  He found the Workshop and the
information received valuable.  In particular, it had provided opportunities for delegations to share
experience from capitals-based representatives and technical experts of developing country Members
on specific problems they faced in the implementation of the Agreement, as well as how they soughtto benefit from it.
48. He was impressed by the quality of the presentations made and ideas put forward to address
the specific problems faced by developing country Members in relation to the four areas of the
Workshop (implementation, international standardization, conformity assessment and capacity
building).  He drew attention to paragraph 10 of the Workshop programme which stated that in thelight of the report, Members could propose and consider further actions which might be taken up in
the Second Triennial Review.  He encouraged Members to reflect on the report as well as the
contributions made for further discussions in the Committee after the summer break.
49. The representative of Egypt found the Workshop useful, as it had concentrated upon concrete
problems as well as providing precise proposals for solutions.  She noted the information provided by
donor countries, financial institutions and international standardizing bodies on their efforts in
technical assistance, and indicated their intention to proceed further in this regard.  She suggested that
the Committee should reflect on the proposals made in order to determine their feasibility, and the
Second Triennial Review would be the occasion to do so.  It might lead the Committee to reach a
point where it could launch a practical non-duplicative technical assistance/cooperation programme,of which the Secretariat would be the focal or liaison point.  She would study the various papers and
proposals submitted with the target of launching such a programme, which she thought could be one
of the outcomes of the Second Triennial Review.
50. The representative of Chile found the discussions at the Workshop transparent and frank.  He
looked forward to future meetings when delega tions could draw from the Workshop suggestions on
technical assistance and cooperation, as suggested by Brazil (G/TBT/W/140).  Although he found the
example of cooperation between standardizing bodies us eful, he felt that at the coming meeting, the
Committee should focus on those aspects related to better implementation of the Agreement, rather
than just on standardization and conformity assessment.
51. The representative of Venezuela found that his country faced the same problems as those
faced by other developing countries, and coordination as well as training of personnel were important.
He supported Chile's view to follow up on the results of the Workshop at future Committee meetings.
52. The representative of Uruguay found the Workshop useful and thanked donor countries for
their contributions.  He recalled that issues had been dealt with in a frank and open fashion.  He
shared the view that the Committee should return  to the outcome of the Workshop at its coming
meetings and make use of it at the Triennial Review.
53. The representative of Panama noted that the problems which had been identified at the
Workshop were common, and believed that the outcome of the Workshop could facilitate the planningG/TBT/M/20
Page 9
of technical assistance programmes of the WTO and other international organizations to help solve
problems faced by developing countries.
54. The representative of Malaysia found that the Workshop had produced some excellent results
and lessons, and hoped that they could be used at a later stage, particularly in the Second Triennial
Review.  Speaking on behalf of ASEAN countries, she expressed her wish that more workshops couldbe conducted, especially on the implementation of the Agreement.
55. The representative of the European Communities found the Workshop useful, and that there
had been a good balance between information received and time allowed for discussions to identify
solutions to problems.  He noted that a huge amount of information had emanated from it, and in
order to move forward, he invited other Members to study the reports of the Chairman and
moderators.  He felt that the Committee should identify what was realistic for the WTO to get
involved with, and what needed to be done by ot her organizations.  He noted that "implementation"
was an important topic in the WTO at the moment, and believed that the Committee had shown a
constructive way to move forward on this difficult subject, and this could be learnt by other bodies of
the organization.
56. The representative of Mexico shared the views expressed, in particular the point made by
Panama that all or the majority of developing countries faced common problems, and this could
facilitate the development of a strategy to tackle these problems.  He found the Workshop efficient in
that it also dealt with the effective implementation of Article 12 provided obligations for Members
which was important for developing country Members.  He thanked the organizers and participants of
the Workshop for their efforts and contributions.
57. The representative of Norway thanked those who had contributed to the success of the
Workshop.  He found that the Workshop had not only been important to developing countries'
administrations but also to delegates of the Committee.  Concerning technical assistance activities, he
drew attention to the following tw o elements:  (i) the importance of developing countries deciding the
priorities themselves;  and (ii) the necessity of the WTO to cooperate with other international
organizations which had the capacity to contribute to the execution of projects in developingcountries.  He also reminded Members to consider the element of funding, as he noted that within the
WTO and the Integrated Framework there were no funds.
58. The representative of Senegal thanked the Secretariat, donor countries, moderators as well as
the participants for contributing to the Workshop.  He noted that at the Workshop, the importance of
information and communication technology had been reiterated.  He believed that, with the aid from
the Secretariat, one could come up with ideas with respect to the use of information technology, and
that would be a promising beginning for the future.  He recalled the projects and proposals oftechnical assistance announced by the EC, Switzerland, Germany and other organizations, and
emphasized the importance for all Members to pursue further liberalization of international trade, with
more balanced participation from developing countries.
59. The representative of Canada joined in commenting on the outcome of the Workshop, which
he felt had provided a basis for progress in the discussions on technical assistance, particularly in
relation to the implementation of the Agreement.  He stressed that in future, when seeking ways to
implement some of the ideas, it was important to  involve the relevant operational agencies in
developing countries.  It was also important to include the appropriate organizations which had the
special expertise, since the WTO was limited in some areas.  He agreed with Norway about the issue
of funding, and felt that there should be a continuing liaison within the WTO.  He felt that theCommittee had had a good Workshop, and its result should be made available to the General Council
or the Committee on Trade and Development.G/TBT/M/20
Page 10
60. The representative of the United States found the Workshop constructive, and thanked those
who had contributed to it.  She noted that there were a lot of information as well as some interesting
proposals for further reflection.  The Committee would need to come back to them at its next meeting.
61. The representative of India informed the Committee that the Workshop had been commented
upon favourably in the WTO.  He noted that the organization was facing a difficult situation with
respect to implementation, and felt that the Workshop had offered a pragmatic way out.  He believed
that the Committee had crossed the first hurdle in  identifying the problems and suggestions for
solutions.  The logical next step would be to move forward to seek the implementation of the
solutions.  He looked forward to working with ot her Members on that at the Second Triennial Review.
He recalled the suggestion made by the EC that delegations who had tabled relevant papers in other
Committees should also table them in the TBT Committee, and indicated his delegation's intention to
do so.  He expected that the Committee would ha ve a productive round of consultations and
discussions which could lead to a successful conclusion of the Second Triennial Review before the
end of the year.
62. The representative of Japan thanked the Chairman, participating Members and those who had
contributed to the Workshop, which he found had provided useful information and suggestions, in
particular for the Triennial Review.
63. The observer of UNIDO expressed thanks that her organization had been invited to participate
in the Workshop.  She found the Workshop valuable and had brought together practitioners from
capitals and supporting institutions to identify problems faced by developing countries.  It had also
revealed the numerous technical assistance programmes offered.  She felt that the challenge at hand
would be to identify the gaps and, as pointed out by Egypt, to delineate concrete and operationalprogrammes with the cooperation and coordination between specialized agencies.
64. She informed the Committee of an UNIDO idea to set up an internet-based global monitoring
system, which would deal with the following features:  (i) basic data on standards and conformity
assessment bodies;  (ii) baseline studies on national quality, standards and metrology (QSM)
infrastructure of developing countries;  (iii) an observatory of trade-related concerns experienced byenterprises;  and (iv) a forum for exchange and discussion on international issues (Annex 2).  The
system would seek to link up existing standards related information systems.  The project was still at a
conceptual stage, and she welcomed any comments or suggestions from Members or other agencies.
65. The Chairman recalled that at the Workshop, one of the key themes had been the need for
effective means of information dissemination which would assist national authorities to perform their
work.  For this reason, he found the UNIDO initiative interesting.
66. The representative of the United States said that she had listened with interest to the proposal
by UNIDO, and expressed her wish to receive further information on it as it developed.  However, she
raised questions as to whether there would be a duplication of work with the Committee, as well as
the existing network for information exchange through the TBT Enquiry Points and notification
procedures.  She also raised concern about the evaluation of technical trade barriers by parties other
than Members, if the trade barriers were to be interpreted within the context of the TBT Agreement.
She believed that trade barriers faced by enterprises should be brought back to the TBT Committee by
Members.  She suggested that UNIDO could rethink its project, and move it more to the direction of
the provision of information not already covered by the Agreement.
67. The observer of the ISO found that there had been a good balance between information and
discussion at the Workshop, and was pleased that ISO had been invited to participate in the sessions
on international standards and conformity assessment.  He provided information on the development
of a database within the framework of the Standards Action in the Global Market Forum (a jointG/TBT/M/20
Page 11
venture between ISO, IEC, ITU, ITC, UNCTAD, UNIDO, WIPO and the International Chamber of
Commerce), which would provide information on technical assistance programmes concerning
standardization and conformity assessment.  He suggested that the WTO assistance programmes could
be coordinated.
68. The observer of the FAO/CODEX thanked the Secr etariat for inviting his organization to the
Workshop, which he found useful and constructive.  He recalled that he had heard interventions
concerning collaboration between WTO and the FAO/Codex Alimentarius Commission.  He
supported the notion for future collaboration in holding workshops related to the TBT Agreement.  He
informed the Committee about the databases developed within the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
He indicated his interest in participating at futu re TBT meetings in order to update the Committee on
the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
69. The Chairman noted that the above statements made by observers had all provided
information on database information projects, which had also been a subject of discussions at the
Workshop.  He believed that would be an important theme for the Committee's future discussions, i.e.
the challenge to put together the available information in a system that Members could benefit from in
the day-to-day operation.  The Workshop had provided the opportunity for a number of agencies to
get together, so that duplication of work could be avoided in this regard.  He invited Members toreflect on the report (Paper Job 4849), so that when the Committee proceeded with the Triennial
Review discussions, the contributions derived from the Workshop could be drawn upon.
70. The Committee took note of the statements made.
IV. PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE OPERATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.4
General Statements 
71. The Chairman recalled that at the informal meeting of 17-18 July 2000, progress had been
made in the preparation of the Second Triennial Review.  At that meeting, the Committee had held
discussions on a paper prepared by the Secretariat concerning principles related to internationalstandards development (paper Job No. 3937), as well as other international standards-related matters.
The Committee had also held discussions on the following issues proposed by Members for the
Review (paper Job No. 4481):  implementation, notifications and procedures for information
exchange, conformity assessment, technical regulati ons, technical assistance, special and differential
treatment, equivalency of standards and labelling.  The Committee had taken on board a number of
the comments made and he felt this would guide th e Committee as it continued its preparation for the
Review.  He invited Members who wished to submit new proposals to do so as soon as possible,because of the limited time available before the last meeting of the year, scheduled for November.
72. The representative of Egypt noted that paper Job 4481 made reference to a number of
documents prepared by the Secretariat and Members (since January 1998) concerning issues
identified to date for the purpose of the Second Trie nnial Review.  She felt that it would be useful if
the Secretariat could prepare a paper, along the line of the non-paper Job 3937, to summarize, undereach issue, the papers and proposals listed on paper Job 4481.  It could serve as a basic paper for
further discussions.
73. The Chairman drew attention to documents G/TBT/SPEC/11 and Revision 1, a compilation of
the papers and proposals contributed by Members to date around the Triennial Review subject areas.
He felt that, at this stage, it might be difficult for the Secretariat to come up with a comprehensive textin all the areas for which the Committee was still aw aiting further information from Members.  He did
not exclude the possibility of requesting the Secretariat to prepare a paper in the future that sought toG/TBT/M/20
Page 12
encapsulate some of the key conclusions that had emerged.  However, he was doubtful that it might be
premature at this stage for the Secretariat to take up this job.  He, instead, requested the Secretariat to
update paper Job No. 4481 and document G/TBT/SPEC/11.
74. The representative of Australia looked forward to the discussions on some of the issues that
had not yet been fully discussed, e.g. equivalency of standards and labelling.  She invited proponents
of these topics to come forward with papers as soon as possible.  She was particularly interested to see
the proponents' views on how these issues related to  the objectives of the Agreement or to trade.
75. The representative of Brazil introduced the Brazilian paper on the Second Triennial Review
(G/TBT/W/140), and considered that the TBT Agreement was generally working well.  However, she
believed that the main difficulty faced was the full implementation of the provisions of the Agreement
by Members.  Such difficulties were further increased by the technical limitations faced by most
Members when implementing the Agreement, and also the lack of clarity on certain concepts relatedto the Agreement.  For this reason, she highlighted the importance of having coherent terms and
definitions under the Agreement, as well as further discussions on the issues of international
standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment.
76. The representative of Mexico found the Brazilian proposal for the clarification of certain
concepts interesting.  However, her delegation had a minimal stand for making amendments to the
Agreement.
Implementation of the Agreement
77. The Chairman drew attention to document G/TBT/W/136 prepared by the Secretariat
concerning the implementation of the Agreement by Members.  He said that Members who had
submitted notifications under Article 15.2 were welcome to provide supplementary information.
78. The representative of the United States noted that document G/TBT/W/136 identified the
statements submitted by Members under Article 15.2 which facilitated the exchange of experience
among Members on the implementation and administration of the Agreement.  She recalled that at the
First Triennial Review and also the Workshop on Technical Assistance, Members were encouraged tofurther exchange information in this regard.  She drew attention to document G/TBT/2/Add.2, the
statement made by the US, and said that her delegation had submitted its statement with a view to
providing assistance to those Members who had not yet made their statements. She noted that
although the statements were summaries in nature, they were intended to provide a picture of how
Members would ensure initial and ongoing compliance with the Agreement.
79. For the US, the implementation of the Uruguay Round TBT Agreement had been an
opportunity to take stock of existing legislations as well as relevant institutions that would assist hergovernment meeting the obligations of the Agreemen t, i.e. to prevent discrimination and the creation
of unnecessary obstacles to trade in the development of mandatory technical regulations, conformity
assessment procedures, as well as voluntary standards.  The US Trade Representative (USTR) had
communicated the obligations of the Agreement to other government agencies, local government
authorities and private bodies.  Other government agencies had been asked to identify any specificregulations, laws or procedures which they thought might be in conflict with the TBT obligations.
Her authorities then took actions to implement the Agreement and to fulfil the US' WTO obligations.
80. She recalled that her country had been a signatory to the Tokyo Round TBT Agreement, and
for this reason, not a lot of new actions had to be taken.  Specific responsibilities had been established,
i.e. the USTR had overall managing responsibilities, the Department of Commerce as well as theDepartment of Agriculture had been given specific responsibilities for information exchange, and the
National Institute for Standards and Technology had been assigned as the US enquiry point and pointG/TBT/M/20
Page 13
of dissemination of information.  The Statement of Administrative Action had stated that the
US agencies were prohibited from creating unnecessary obstacles to trade.  The agencies had also
been called upon to use relevant international standa rds, if considered to be effective and appropriate
for meeting the legitimate regulatory objectives, as a basis for the measures.  She drew attention to the
Executive Order 12866 which guided federal agencies in the development of regulations.  It containeda number of provisions, including regulatory impact analysis overseen by the Office of Management
and Budget.
81. The Administrative Procedures Act was the chief vehicle for assuring transparency in the
development of US regulations, the consideration of comments, the responsibilities of agencies to
respond to the comments in the federal register, and points for appeal in the event of dissatisfaction
with the final outcome.  She noted that in term s of trade policy development, the USTR had the
Trade Policy Staff Committee, and there existed a sub-committee involving key US agenciesinterested in the TBT Agreement.  It would act as an ongoing vehicle for discussing issues related to
the implementation of the Agreement, and evolving positions on trade irritants.  There existed also a
group of private sector advisors, a committee devoted to advising her government on the
implementation of the Agreement and concerns with foreign  governments.
82. She noted that there were a large number of bodies developing voluntary standards in the US,
and for the purposes of the implementation of the Code of  Good Practice, her government relied on a
notification by the American National Standards Institute which had signed the Code of Good
Practice on behalf of all the standard bodies accredited for consensus procedures.  Regarding
notifications of proposed regulations, it was done on the basis of identifying the proposals published
in the Federal Register;  for this reason, her authorities did not have to rely on the relevant agencies toinform of the proposals.
Notification and Procedures of Information Exchange
83. The representative of Thailand raised concern that lately, the period provided for comments
on notifications was short.  She encouraged Members to allow 60 days for comments, as
recommended by the Committee, and proposed that the period should be calculated starting from the
date of circulation of the notification.
84. The representative of Mexico had reservations on Thailand's proposal to specify the
reasonable time-period for comment.
85. The Chairman recalled that during informal consultations, the Committee had held useful
discussions on a number of proposals on notifications and procedures for information exchange.  He
proposed to request the Secretariat to prepare a paper compiling the relevant proposals and commentsmade to date, with a view to facilitate discussions that might lead to the Committee's agreement on
certain proposals to improve the notification and information exchange procedures.  He invited
Members to provide the Secretariat with any further comments and proposals in this area as soon as
possible.
International Standards and International Standardizing Bodies
86. The Chairman recalled that during the informal meeting on 17 July, the Committee had held
extensive discussions on the issue of international standards and standardizing bodies, starting with a
focus discussion on the Secretariat paper (Job number 3937) on principles for international standards
development.  The Committee had also touched upon a number of other issues regarding, forexample, the use of international standards and the status of international standardizing bodies.G/TBT/M/20
Page 14
87. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the work done by the Secretariat
and contributions made by Members on the subject.  He felt that paper Job 3937 had encapsulated
many views and was useful in identifying the common elements for the process of international
standards development.  However, he believed that this was not enough on its own, and there was a
need for discussion on the scope and purposes of international standards as a basis for technicalregulations, and in this context, the coherence of in ternational standards was an essential point.  Paper
Job 3937 dealt with issues such as openness, transparency, impartiality, efficiency and relevancy,
which were important.  These principles could be applicable to any standards development process.
However, these principles should not remain abstract, but should be related to the constitution/status
of the body that applied them, in order to develop coherence in international standards.
88. He believed that an international standardizing body which developed international standards
to be used as a basis for mandatory technical regulations, should guarantee national representation.Only this way, could a commitment to use these international standards in every country be
reinforced.  A body that developed standards used for technical regulations must exclusively be
constituted and act as an international body, otherwise conflicts and incoherence would arise if bodies
other than that were to act as if they were international in the same field.  If there was a proliferation
of bodies developing standards on the same matter,  it would create a situation whereby countries,
when preparing technical regulations, had to choose between several relevant international standards.
The effect of such a choice would create unnecessary barriers to trade and impact negatively on the
implementation of the Agreement.
89. He gave an example that if countries A, B and C were preparing technical regulations in the
same field, and had chosen different international standards in this particular field as the basis for theirregulations, they were, in fact, all complying with Article 2.4 of the Agreement.  However, the market
would remain fragmented since these countries were using different standards as the basis for their
regulations.  He believed that this would not be in line with the spirit and purpose of the Agreement to
facilitate trade and reduce fragmentation.  For this reason, in addition to the principles of the standards
development process as set out in the paper Job 3937, international standards should also be coherent.
90. He reiterated the importance attached to the constitution/status of an international body.  He
welcomed the IEC and ISO paper (G/TBT/W/131) which he thought had provided useful information
on this.  Both organizations had emphasized the role the constitution of a body played in international
standards development.  They claimed that international bodies had to respect the same principles of
membership and due process that form the basis for WTO membership, otherwise their standards
should not be recognized as international standards in the WTO context.  His delegation believed that
the status of treaty organizations such as the ITU and the Codex Alimentarius Commission wereexclusively international, based on national representation and could also be considered as developing
international standards.
91. He concluded that a large number of standards could be developed following the principles of
transparency, openness, impartiality, effectiveness and relevancy (as stated in paper Job 3937).
However, standards which the EC believed to be truly international, were just a subset of that group,i.e. they were to be developed by treaty organizations with international status.
92. The representative of Brazil shared views w ith the EC on a need to avoid duplication of
standards.  She recalled that at the Workshop of 19-20 July, a number of representatives from
developing countries had expressed difficulties in this regard.  If counties did not know what
international standards were, it would be difficult to use them as a basis for their technical regulations.
93. The representative of the United States welcomed the Secretariat paper Job 3937, and
emphasized the importance of stakeholders' involvement and consensus process which underpinned
the development of international standards.  She found that the EC's point on international standardsG/TBT/M/20
Page 15
was limited to the aspect when they were used as a basis to technical regulations.  She agreed on the
need to facilitate trade and reduce fragmentation and duplication of international standards.  However,
she raised questions on the EC's view that an in ternational standardizing body, developing standards
to be used as a basis for mandatory technical legislations, must guarantee national representation.  She
thought that it was not for the bodies per se  to decide whether their documents should be used as
technical regulations.  It was up to a Member to decide, when looking into the bodies for documents
that might be relevant to the technical regulation required.  She recalled that at the Workshop, the
Committee was informed by the Codex Alimentarius (an intergovernmental body) that their
documents were voluntary, although they might be used by Members as basis for mandatory technical
regulations.  She noted that recently, the UN/ECE Working Party 29 had agreed on a "Global
Harmonization Agreement", and that seemed to her to be a body trying to produce documents for
mandatory technical regulations.  She raised questions on that, and indicated her wish to come back toit in later discussions.
94. Referring to the paper submitted by the ISO and IEC (G/TBT/W/131), and without prejudice
as to whether she agreed with its content, she raised concerns about non-Members, such as the ISO
and IEC, making interpretations of the Agreement.
95. The representative of Japan welcomed the Secretariat's paper (Job 3937).  He felt that the
paper, focussing on international standards development process, covered only one aspect of the
broader issue of international standards.  He believed that the WTO should not automatically take any
standard as an international standard under th e TBT Agreement, just because the standard had
emanated from certain international standardizing bodies.  Japan supported the strengthening of
procedures for international standards development, such as transparency, openness and impartiality.Strengthened procedural requirements would improve the relevancy of standards emanating from such
processes.  However, as stated at the Workshop by certain speakers, some international standards
could be regionally biased or obsolete.  He felt that strengthened procedural requirements could
reduce the possibility of creating such standards, but would not completely eliminate the possibility.
The WTO should retain its right to question such standards, especially when a dispute arose inrelation to Articles 2.4 and 2.5 or Annex 3 of the Agreement.  With respect to the WTO's viewpoints
on the relevancy of international standards, he proposed the following element:  universality, in terms
of regionally non-biased and technological neutrality, so that they would not be trade restrictive.  This
would preserve Members' right to question inade quate international standards, and enhance the
dynamic between the WTO and international standardizing bodies, thereby indirectly encouraging
them to produce better and more universal standa rds.  He would elaborate it further at the next
meeting.
96. The representative of Egypt, referring to the Secretariat paper Job 3937, believed that it had
dealt with a number of concepts and principles for international standards development.  However,
she had reservations about some of the terms used  in the paper, such as "meaningful opportunities"
and "tangible ways", as well as part E on "Development Dimension" which needed to be
strengthened.  She noted that the Workshop had come up with a number of proposals and solutions,and in the light of that, she suggested that the paper should stay open until practicable language was
encompassed.  She believed that this could easily be  done at a later stage, in informal meetings with
the final proposals and solutions being forwarded.
97. Regarding the Japanese proposals on market relevancy of international standards, she
understood the Japanese concept that certain standards could not be considered as international.  Shereiterated her concerns about using market share as a criterion, in particular to define a specific
percentage of market share for certain products.  This could damage the interests of developing
countries, especially in the case when a developing country produced a product which consisted of,
for example, 80 or 90 per cent of its exports, but did not represent a visible share in the global market.
She noted also that the Japanese concept dealt with  the technological content of standards, whetherG/TBT/M/20
Page 16
they were outdated (a period of 25 years had been suggested) or too advanced for international
adoption and usage.   She felt that this concept did not take into account the interests of developing
countries, due to the technological gap between developing and developed countries.  She concluded
that the Japanese proposal could lead to a difficult debate in the Committee on criteria such as:  "what
is an outdated standard", "what are the most advanced ones" or "which standard fits certaintechnologies".
98. The representative of Australia introduced the Australian paper on international standards
(G/TBT/W/139), and said that it was based on the Secretariat paper with an attempt to move it
forward.  However, in the light of the discussions in informal meetings, she might put forward an
updated position in the future.  She found that "the development of international standards",
"international standards as used in technical regu lations" and "what constitutes an international
standards writing body" were three separate issues that might need further in-depth discussions.  Shealso indicated her intention to come back to the Japanese statement.
99. The representative of Chile reiterated his delegation's position that by ensuring openness,
impartiality and transparency in the development of  international standards, there would automatically
be a convergence of international standards which were not duplicated and were relevant to the
market.  He understood the concerns raised by Japan on market relevancy, as well as the EC oncoherence related to technical regulations.  He agreed to work on these issues, but stressed that it was
important to find a way which served the Agreement, but was not too rigid nor over disciplined.
100. The representative of Malaysia welcomed the Secretariat paper Job 3937 and found the
guidelines useful to ensure that international st andards were developed in such a way that would
obtain wide acceptance by Members.  She noted the comments made by Japan and EC.  Sheappreciated the EC's view that international standardizing bodies should guarantee national
representation in these bodies, and hoped that the EC could come up with ideas on how this could be
achieved.
101. Regarding the principles for standardization bodies, she felt that the principles for standards
development, as elaborated in paper Job 3937, would be reflective of the conduct of internationalstandardizing bodies.  She agreed that there should be procedures for openness, impartiality and
transparency.  She felt that there was a need for changes in policy-making procedures in international
standardizing bodies, as well as the need for the participation of the majority of Members in these
bodies at both the operational and policy levels.  She proposed to add the following point at the end of
paragraph 11 of the paper:  "the operation of the policy development committees", so that openness
for participation at every stage of standards development could be ensured.  She was also ready to
consider the Japanese proposal that there should be additional requirements.
102. The representative of Indonesia said that his country relied on the importance of international
standards (e.g. those developed by ISO, IEC, CODEX) to assist in improving the quality of its
products and strengthening its industry.  He believed that standards, technical regulations and
conformity assessment procedures which conformed to international systems would not create
unnecessary obstacles to trade.  However, the use of international standards by a number of regulatoryauthorities, as the basis of technical regulations was still unsatisfactory due to lack of understanding
of the issue.  For this reason, the WTO should retain its right not to automatically accept any standard
as an international standard under the TBT Agreement.  He supported the notions of universality and
neutrality.
103. The representative of Thailand felt that in th e international standards development process,
the interests of developing countries were not fully taken into account.  In most cases, it turned out
that international standards were not suitable for the use of developing countries.  For this reason,
Thailand supported the principles of transparency, openness and impartiality in the internationalG/TBT/M/20
Page 17
standards development process, in particular that the constraints of developing countries were
considered and that all international standards were based on consensus principle.  She also proposed
that the Committee adopt guidelines for equivalency of technical regulations and standards.
104. The representative of Mexico reiterated that a definition of an international standard was
important to the Committee.  In the light of the di scussions at the Workshop, she believed that the
principles of openness, transparency, impartiality and efficiency might not be enough to guarantee the
effective participation of many countries in international standardization work.  She noted that most
secretariats of technical committees in international standardizing bodies were not held by developing
countries;  a point she felt worth further reflection after the summer break.  She also expressed interest
in further discussion on the Japanese proposal.
105. The representative of Canada supported the Secretariat paper, in particular part two of the
paper on guidelines for international standards development.  He found that it had developed into
what he thought the final document should look like, and might not require much further work.  He
added that the following two elements would require some thought: (i) the proposal by the US related
to consensus as part of the process for standards development;  and (ii) the proposal of Japan, as
explained at the present meeting.  Referring to the EC proposal, he raised concern that the Committee
might be heading towards building too much rigidity into the system.  He recalled comments made bythe ISO Secretary General at the Workshop on 19-20 July, saying that he was conscious of the fact
that international standards were developed by all kinds of bodies, including a number of American
organizations;  and in his view, good international st andards were unlikely to be challenged under the
WTO, regardless of their origin.
106. The representative of Hong Kong, China fe lt that the EC's proposal related to the
constitution/status of an international standardizing body and the role of the Committee in relationship
to international standardizing bodies deserved furthe r thoughts.  She shared the Japanese concern that
WTO should not automatically take any standard as an international standard in the context of the
Agreement simply because it had been developed according to the principles of international
standards development.  Her delegation would study the papers submitted by Members for furtherdiscussion at the next meeting.
107. The representative of Thailand supported the use of electronic transmission for information
exchange and for the purpose of preparation of international standards.  However, she stressed that
since most developing countries did not have the same technology as developed countries, (e.g. the
software of computers used in Thailand is Windows 96 and those of developed countries is
Windows 2000), it could be difficult to communicate.  This should be taken into consideration.
Conformity Assessment Procedures
108. The representative of Australia introduced the Australian paper (G/TBT/W/138).  That paper
was built on previous Australian papers on acceptance of results of conformity assessment, taking into
account comments made by other Members.  She reiterated that the Australian proposal did not
impose additional obligations on Members, but was aimed at assisting Members to ensure that themechanisms they put in place for the acceptance of results were consistent with their obligations
under the Agreement.  The paper did not prescr ibe which mechanism should be used, but had
identified the mechanisms commonly used.  Members might wish to choose one or more of those
mechanisms.  She noted that while the mechanisms outlined might be appropriate and valid, they
could be implemented in such a way that they did not comply with the TBT rules.  The paper sought
to outline the principles needed to ensure that the TBT obligations were met.
109. The representative of Egypt welcomed the papers prepared by delegations on conformity
assessment.  She noted that Brazil had emphasized the importance of adopting common rules in orderG/TBT/M/20
Page 18
to achieve progress in mutual recognition.  Canada had emphasized the notion of one standard, one
test, one certification (as stated at the First Triennial Review), and Australia had outlined certain
principles for acceptance of results (including MRAs between regulatory authorities of different
countries).  She found that the difficulties developing countries faced in this area included the lack of
sound national bodies (e.g. accreditation bodies) to match the sophisticated and advanced conformityassessment system in developed countries.  In addition, supplier's declaration of conformity was not
often feasible, due to the lack of a legal framework and difficulties in determining liability in cases of
non-conformity, particularly in the absence of a unified definition of suppliers.
110. The representative of Japan welcomed the Australian paper (G/TBT/W/138) which he
believed was helpful and had taken into account the comments made by Members.  He raised the
question of why Australia had changed the scope of its proposal from what he understood as a set of
basic rules for conformity assessment bodies (i.e. a guidance for the implementation of Article 5) to a
tool for central governments to accept the results of conformity assessment activities (i.e. a
codification of Article 6).
111. He noted the phrase "Member governments should encourage all bodies …" (paragraph 5,
page 1 of G/TBT/W/138), and sought clarificati on on the meaning of "all bodies", whether these
included all the central government, local government or private bodies.  Referring to point (d), page2 of that paper, he sought clarification and made comments on the following:  (i) the meaning of
"different mechanisms";  (ii) "the provision of arrangements" (first bullet) - what would those
arrangements be, whether they be assessment bodies, such as the IEC;  (iii) "recognition that different
standards and regulations … can achieve the same outcomes"  (second bullet) - whether it was too
much;  (iv) "cross border accreditation of conformity assessment bodies where accreditation does notexist" (third bullet) – whether this might lead to a division of international markets.  Referring to the
first bullet of point (e) "playing a full part … in the preparation of international standards", he
believed that standardization should be done on the basis of national standards bodies, e.g. in the ISO,
it would be the participation of national standardization bodies, and national accreditation or
certification bodies would participate only when they represented the national body.
112. On page 3, concerning the definition of "conformity assessment" and "accreditation body", he
raised the question as to whether it duplicated the definition contained in ISO/IEC Guide 2.  He noted
that the Australian paper put accreditation bodies above all conformity assessment bodies, and
expressed doubts if this was appropriate.
113. He recalled the Japanese proposal on conformity assessment which related to a clarification
on:  (i) what were the guides and recommendations for conformity assessment under Article 5 (similar
to the issue of a definition on international standards);  and (ii) what were the international andregional systems for conformity assessment under Article 9.  He believed that these international and
regional systems should follow disciplines rela ted to, for example, openness, transparency,
impartiality, access to MRAs, use of international standards and the development dimension.
114. The representative of Malaysia welcomed any approach that could reduce trade barriers and
would promote non-discriminatory acceptance of conformity assessment results.  She welcomed the
Australian paper which had been delivered to this end, i.e. the principles to ensure that procedures for
acceptance of tests results were not burdensome and costly;  as well as the attachment of an indicative
list providing options for Members to select the mechanisms for acceptance of results.  She noted the
involvement of the private sector in the provision of conformity assessment services, and felt that
private bodies should also recognize conformity assessment results conducted by domestic conformityassessment bodies in exporting countries.  She pointed to cases when developing countries had not
been granted recognition by other countries' testing and certification bodies, as well as the situation of
private certification bodies undertaking conformity assessment activities in exporting countries.  InG/TBT/M/20
Page 19
this regard, she emphasized the importance of complying with Article 8 of the Agreement related to
non-governmental conformity assessment bodies.
115. The representative of Chile welcomed the Australian paper, and said that he would come back
to it at future meetings.  He recalled that at the Workshop, it had been recognized that one of the
important obstacles to trade for developing countries concerned conformity assessment procedures.India had emphasized the need for further work in this area in light of the Workshop.
116. The representative of the United States welcomed the Australian contribution, and indicated
that she would come back to it with more detailed comments.  She associated her delegation with the
questions and comments made by Japan and Chile.  She sought clarification on how "government
designation" (point C of the Indicative List) related to Article 6.4 of the Agreement.
117. The representative of the European Communities found the Australian paper useful to
advance discussions on the subject of conformity assessment.  It had outlined the principles which
were important in this field.  He felt that at this stage, there was a great deal of substance and
information on the table, and the discussion was maturing.  He noted the point made in the Brazilian
paper on adoption of common rules, which he believed, if achieved, could eliminate barriers in this
area.  He thought that the presentation of India at the Workshop, together with the Canadian paper as
well as the Japanese intervention, contained good ideas for further discussion at the next meeting.
118. The representative of Switzerland welcomed the Australian paper, and shared the view that
the Committee should find a way to give more em phasis to international standards for conformity
assessment.  Even Switzerland, as a small country, could not participate fully in the international
standardization work; this should not prevent it from making use of international standards in the
voluntary field, as well as the area of technical regulations.  If a regulatory authority wished to refuseimports complying with international standards, it had the burden of proof to show that the products
could be a danger to public health, the environment or consumers.  She believed if this principle had
been followed more in the past, there would have been less claims of potential trade disputes.
119. The representative of India took note of the statements made, and indicated that he would
come back to them in future meetings.
120. The Chairman recalled that a number of speakers had pointed out the fact that the discussions
on conformity assessment had advanced, and a number of key points and themes had been identified
which could serve as foundation to build on in the future.  He noted that the issues which had been
discussed under the Triennial Review were also raised at the Workshop, for example, the issues of
international standards and guides, principles for conformity assessment, as well as the different
conformity assessment procedures.  For this reason, he felt that the outcome of the Workshop could
be used as discussions proceeded.  He recognized the need for further bilateral, plurilateral andmultilateral consultations on all of these issues.
Technical Regulations
121. The representative of Brazil considered technical regulation issues as one of the important
parts of the Agreement, since barriers to trade us ually arose from them.  She stressed that efforts
should be made to prepare, adopt and apply technical regulations according to the principles under
Article 2 of the Agreement, especially the one on equivalency of technical regulations to facilitate
trade, as stated in Article 2.7.  The objectives of Article 2 could be more easily achieved if technical
regulations were restricted to the essential elements related to the legitimate objectives.  These
essential aspects did not depend on technological progress, but, in most cases, established theperformance requirements.  For this reason, she believed that it was desirable to establish an
interrelation between technical regulations and standards.G/TBT/M/20
Page 20
Technical Assistance and Special and Differential Treatment
122. The representative of Egypt welcomed the Brazilian proposal on technical assistance
(G/TBT/W/140) related to the establishment of a Triennial Cooperation Programme to be financed by
several international sources, followed up by the Committee and evaluated annually with regard to itsimplementation and results.  She expressed interest in further discussions to explore the means of
achieving such a programme, which she thought could go side by side with the work of exploring the
technical and financial assistance required.
123. The representative of Senegal said that the issues of technical assistance and special and
differential treatment were subjected to all WTO Agreements, not only the TBT Agreement.  This
included the element of ensuring greater participation of developing countries in international trade.
He noted that there were two relevant items for Members as well as the Secretariat in the workprogramme of the First Triennial Review.  The first one related to the implementation of Article 11,
and Members had been invited to communicate information in this regard.  He asked if any such
information had been received.  The second one related to special and differential treatment;  the
Secretariat had been requested to prepare a study to establish the state of knowledge concerning the
technical barriers to the market access of developing country suppliers, especially small andmedium-sized enterprises.  The Secretariat had also been requested to consolidate and circulate a list
of relevant international guides and recommendations relating to conformity assessment procedures.
He raised a question about the status of such works.  In relation with Article 12, he asked if there had
been any exchange of information on special and differential treatment.
124. The Secretariat replied that the paper related to the state of knowledge concerning the
technical barriers to the market access of developing country suppliers had been prepared
(G/TBT/W/103) and circulated on 25 January 1999;  the list of relevant international guides and
recommendations relating to conformity assessment procedures had been prepared, updated
(G/TBT/W/72 and Rev.1) and circulated on 24 June 1998 and 29 September 1999.  Any
communication received concerning information exchange on technical assistance and special anddifferential treatment, would be reflected in paper (Job 4481) and G/TBT/SPEC/11 and Add.1.
125. The representative of Panama informed the Committee of a Workshop held recently in
Panama  related to the needs of the eight governments of Central America and the Dominican
Republic on the implementation and the Second Triennial Review of the Agreement (G/TBT/W/142).
She thanked the WTO, ISO, World Bank and OAS for supporting the Workshop.
Labelling126. The representative of Egypt, referring to the EC proposal on labelling (G/TBT/W/133),
reiterated that the issue of labelling was a sensitive subject for developing and least-developed
countries, because labelling requirements could affect trade flow to certain markets.  Although she
acknowledged the right of Members to raise any issue under the Review, she insisted that the issues
had to lie within the framework of the Agreement, and that there should not be any intention to widenthe scope of the Agreement.  She emphasized that discussion on the issue of labelling was one thing,
the proposal on developing multilateral guides on labelling was another.
127. The representatives of Malaysia and the Philippines
 supported the Egyptian's view that there
was no need to formulate guidelines on labelling, which had already been covered under the
Agreement.
128. The Chairman concluded that the Committee had had a useful discussion on the issues raised
to date.  He believed that the discussions would be intensified after the summer break, when the
Committee would aim at preparing a document for the Second Triennial Review by November.G/TBT/M/20
Page 21
129. The Committee took note of the statements made.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
130. The representative of Egypt recalled that at the last meeting, she had associated Egypt with
the concerns expressed by a number of delegates on a UN/ECE project for "An International Model
for Implementing Good Regulatory Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of
Technical Regulations via the Use of International Standards (G/TBT/W/129).  The UN/ECE had
informed the Committee that the document was in a draft form, and that on 7 June 2000, an informal
meeting was to be organized by UN/ECE for experts from industry and international organizations to
discuss the concept of the model as well as the feasibility of its use in particular sectors.  She
requested the UN/ECE to update the Committee on this.
131. The chairman of the UN/ECE Working Party on Technical Harmonization and
Standardization Policies reported that the informal expert consultations in June 2000 with UN/ECE
member states, international organizations as well as industry had been useful, and the comments
made would be taken into account for the furthering of the draft model.  He would come back to the
Committee with further information.  He believed the model linked with the work of the Committee
on how to formulate technical regulations and to use international standards.
132. The representative of Japan agreed that Article 2.4 of the Agreement provided disciplines for
Members to use international standards as the basis for technical regulations.  However, he found that
the consideration of creating a mechanism in UN/ECE, in addition to the WTO/TBT Agreement, for
the preparation, adoption and application of technical regulations was a duplication and unnecessary.
133. The representative of Latvia informed the Committee of the change of address of the Latvian
enquiry point;  the information could be found in document G/TBT/ENQ/16.
134. The representative of the European Communities introduced the EC paper on the
precautionary principle (G/TBT/W/137 ).  Considering that the paper had been distributed just before
the meeting and that it was still under reflection within the EC, he would present it in detail at the next
meeting.
135. The Chairman announced that the next Committee meeting was scheduled to be held
on 4-6 October 2000, and the following one on 13-17 November 2000.  He envisaged a number of
informal consultations between these two meetings.  He indicated that the annotated agenda would be
circulated to delegations before the meetings.
136. The Committee took note of the statements made.
_____________G/TBT/M/20
Page 22
ANNEX 1
WORKSHOP ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL
TREATMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
Summary Report of the Chairman
John Adank (New Zealand)
1. A report of the Workshop is under preparation with the assistance of the four moderators and
will be made available to delegations next week.  In the meantime, I would briefly summarize myview on some of the main points emerging from the discussion at the workshop.
2. The two-day Workshop provided a valuable opportunity for exchange of information and
ideas on the problems faced by developing countries in respect to the implementation and operation of
the TBT Agreement.  The discussion was practical and solution-oriented.  The discussions on each of
the four themes:  Implementation;  International Standards;  Conformity Assessment;  and CapacityBuilding highlighted the real world challenges that developing countries face in regard to pursuing
both their rights and meeting their obligations under the Agreement.  If I had to indicate one clear
theme arising from the discussion it would be "Identifying Specific Strategies and Solutions to
Address Common Challenges".
3. All countries have specific technical assistance needs and requirements.  It was noted that
there was no one single model bureaucratic or administrative structure that all countries should
follow.  A number of speakers highlighted the importa nce of ensuring that solutions were targeted at
the specific priorities and needs identified by individual or groups of developing countries that would
allow them to effectively implement as well as benefit from the Agreement.  This calls for an
assessment at the national level - an assessment which some speakers pointed out might need to beassisted by guidance from outside - including through bilateral cooperation or cooperation at the
regional or international level.  However, it was emphasized that any solutions must be carefully
tailored to take into account the specific situation of each country.  The discussions also highlighted a
range of common challenges faced by developing and least developed countries in the four subject
areas discussed.
4. In regard to implementation, effective coordination at the national level (among all relevant
agencies and departments) and achieving increased awareness of TBT requirements were emphasized.The importance of securing political commitment to support the contribution that could be made at the
technical level was underlined in this regard.  The value of training opportunities, including
internships, “in house” experts ("twinning" arra ngements), as well as arrangements involving
personnel from other developing countries who had faced similar challenges in the past  (south-south
cooperation) was highlighted.  In addition, it was suggested that involvement of all interested parties,including the private sector, was important to further understanding the benefits of the
TBT Agreement and to support implementation by national authorities.  It was noted that minimizing
the use of mandatory technical regulations and utilis ing international standards, rather than preparing
separate national standards, could reduce the regulatory burden and open up market access
opportunities.
5. International standardisation was recognized as an area where developing country
participation was still limited and constrained as a result of technical capacity, the location of
Secretariats and meetings as well as other constraints in the areas of financial and human resources
which impeded participation in meetings.  This was an area for ongoing attention within international
and regional bodies.  Regional cooperation was recognized as a useful way to influence theG/TBT/M/20
Page 23
international standardisation process.  The useful role that internet and video-conferencing could play
in facilitating the negotiations and discussion s within international standardizing bodies was
underlined by a number of speakers, as well as the importance of working to secure greater
participation among developing country participants to act as Chairs or secretariats in various
technical committees.  Prioritising key areas of intere st in participating in international standardizing
bodies was seen as essential.  Securing effective translation arrangements for international standards
was also seen as an area in which progress needs to be made.
6. On conformity assessment the discussions highlighted the importance of effective capacity
building and technical assistance through enhanced regional and international cooperation, as well as
the use of relevant international guides and recommendations.  A coordinated strategy at the national
level to identify relevant infrastructural requirements and needs was important, given the limited
human and financial resources, as well as training opportunities in developing countries.  It wasrecognized that technical assistance in this area wa s an evolving process, given the need to nurture
skills and institutional development over a long time-frame.
7. In regard to capacity building more generally, the need for more effective human resource
development as well as information and knowledge dissemination were highlighted.  The importance
of supporting the capacity building process through effective coordination at the national level wasalso emphasized – lack of effective national coordination could seriously impede the capacity building
process.  A number of speakers emphasized the need to sensitise industry about the importance of
standards, quality and metrology.  Needs assessment and identification were seen as an essential first
step in devising effective strategies and solutions.  Regional seminars, involving participation from
countries with similar needs, as well as relevant international and regional agencies were considereduseful ways of exchanging experience and identifying solutions.
8. The important role that information technology and the internet could play in assisting
national bodies, both in the domestic sphere as well as the context of regional and international
cooperation, was emphasized throughout the two days of discussions.  A number of developing
county participants drew attention to their need for basic computer resources in this regard.   Finally,the need to look for ways to achieve more effective coordination of technical assistance activities was
very much highlighted, with a specific proposal made to establish a centralized mechanism relating to
coordination of TBT-related technical assistance activities.  It was considered useful to keep this idea
under review, taking account of the initiatives under way to collect data on technical assistance in
various bodies, as well as the relationship that such a proposal might have in regard to the
Integrated Framework.
9. The donor countries - the European Communities, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and the
United Kingdom – were thanked for their generous contribution in funding the participation of
speakers from developing countries and participants from least developed countries.
10. It was suggested that there should be further reflection at the national level and in the context
of the ongoing discussions of the TBT Committee on the report of the Workshop.  In the light of the
Workshop, regional and international bodies should also reflect further on the contribution that theycould make in the area of TBT-related technical assistance.G/TBT/M/20
Page 24
ANNEX 2
THE UNIDO PROPOSAL
1. The proposal emanates from a survey on trade implications that UNIDO carried out few years
ago, together with a number of regional workshops. It has revealed that developing countries lack
access to comprehensive sources of standards-related information, allowing them to keep up-to-date
and benchmark themselves. Developing countries are also increasingly experiencing technical
requirements as obstacles to international trade, yet information on actual enterprise concerns in the
area of technical requirements is not easily available. What is therefore urgently needed in thedeveloping countries is the establishment of coordination mechanisms to ensure the effective
assessment and monitoring of constraints in this area.
2. The proposal would build on the national enquiry points, and assist them in conducting the
base-line studies on their national QSM infrastructure . They would also be assisted to survey the
trade-related problems faced by their domestic enterprises and record these constraints in the form ofdatabases.  Both the United States as well as the EU have on their respective web pages a site that lists
barriers encountered by their industries.  These national databases will then be combined into a global
information system that would allow for a consistent presentation of the constraints faced and help to
raise awareness and provide a unified position on TBT at regional and international fora, such as the
WTO.
3. At the national level, the idea is to set up consultation mechanisms between the enquiry
points, enterprises, standardization bodies as well as other relevant stakeholders to discuss problems,
monitor trends and identify and coordinate technical assistance.  At the global level, this would
provide an idea about the common problems countries faced which would then, in a second phase, be
translated into specific technical assistance initia tives, targeting the respective institutions together
with the enterprises concerned.
4. UNIDO is considering to start the programme with a pilot group of countries, before
spreading out gradually for a global coverage.  Although UNIDO is not a financing agency,
consideration is given to contribute some seed money from its own resources to get the programme
started.  Other donors may come on board as th e programme developed, and UNIDO welcomes other
technical agencies to join force.
__________