WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED  
 G/TBT/M/33  
31 August  2004  
 (04-3598 ) 
  Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 1 JULY  2004  
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Sudhakar Dalela  (India)  
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2 
II. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..........................  2 
III. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRAT ION OF THE AGREEMENT  ....................  2 
A. STATEMENT FROM MEMBERS UNDER ARTICLE 15.2 ................................ ................................ .. 2 
B. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2 
1. New Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  2 
2. Concerns Previously Raised  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 
C. OTHER MATTERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  16 
IV. TRIENNIAL REVIEW  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  16 
A. ISSUES ARISING FROM THE THIRD TRIENNIAL REVIEW  ................................ ............................  16 
1. Good Regulatory Practic e ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16 
2. Transparency Procedures  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 
3. Conformity Assessment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 22 
4. Tech nical assistance  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  23 
5. Other Elements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  24 
B. PREPARATION OF THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW  ................................ ................................ . 25 
V. TECHNICAL CO -OPERATION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  25 
VI. OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  26 
A. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  26 
B. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  26 
VII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING ................................ ................................ ................................ . 26 
 
_______________  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own re sponsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.  G/TBT/M/33  
Page 2 
 
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/2318, dated 26 May 2004 .  
II. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
2. Pursuant to Article 13.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Committee elected  Mr. Sudhakar Dalela  
(India) as the Chairperson of the Committee.  
III. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
A. STATEMENT FROM MEMBERS UNDER ARTICLE 15.2 
3. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to a revised list of statements under 
Article  15.2 contained in document G/TBT/GEN/1/Rev.1 , dated  15 June 2004.2  He also noted  that 
the latest list of enquiry points under Article  10.1 could be found in document G/TBT/ENQ/24 , 
dated  9 March 2004 .   
4. The representative of Mexico  announced the publication of the National Standardization 
Programme for 2004 , which included  information on technical r egulation s, sanitary and phyt osanitary 
measures and standards, which w ould be deve loped in Mexico throughout the year.3  Mexico 
considered this communication a reasonable measure in line with  Article  10.3.1 , and an early notice 
under  Article  2.9.1 of the TBT Agreement.  
B. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
5. The Chairman , referring to the Annotated Agenda4, encourage d Members, when raising a new 
specific trade concern , to inform the Secretariat, as well as the Member concerned, of their intention 
to do so in advance of the meeting , in order  to facilit ate the discussion and enable the responding 
Member to come better prepared .  This was meant as  an encouragement from the Chair  and did not 
create any new obligations .   
1. New Concerns  
(i) Argentina:  MERCOSUR Regulation on Definitions Relating to Alcoholic Beve rages  Other 
than Fermented  (G/TBT/N/ARG/159 ) 
6. The representative of Jamaica  drew the Committee's attention to a MERCOSUR technical 
regulation on definitions relating to alcoholic beverages, other than fermented, notified by Argentina 
in G/TBT/N/ARG/159 , dat ed 16 April 2004 .  She was concerned that this measure could have a 
significant negative effect on the trade in distilled spirits , such a s rum, by Jamaican and other 
Caribbean distilled spirits producers .  Together with the delegations of the Dominican  Republic, 
Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago , Jamaica had presented comments to Argentina  and to its enquiry 
point .  Jamaica expected that these comments would be taken into account and amendments 
introduced to the technical regulation.  Of special concern wer e the definitions o f alcoholic beverages 
derived from sugar cane  under the first paragraph of point XVIII  of the Regulation , which  defined 
those beverages as being derived from "simple alcoholic distillates or from the distillation of 
fermented mu sts of su gar cane juices or molasses or syrups derived from sugar cane" .  In the view of 
Jamaican experts, the production of alcoholic spirits of any kind by a single distillation alone, without 
prior fermentation, was impossible .  The MERCOSUR definition was there fore inaccurate .  Jamaica 
 
2 A corrigendum to this list was issued on 13 July 2004 as document G/TBT/GEN/1/Rev.1/Corr.1.  
3 More detail is contained in G/TBT/GEN/7, date d 7 June 2004.  
4 The Annotated Draft Agenda was circulated on 16 June 2004 as document JOB(04)/76.   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 3 
 
 
requested that the reference to simple alcoholic distillates should be deleted from this paragraph and 
also where it was mentioned in the first paragraph of point XIX  on rum.  Likewise, the definition of 
rum in the first paragraph  of point XIX as being "aged in whole or in part" was inaccurate, as Jamaica, 
along with other Caribbean producers , had a long tradition of producing , selling locally and  exporting 
high quality rums  that we re not aged .  Longstanding and generally accepted rum definitions , such as 
those of the European Communities, the United States , CARICOM  countries , Australia  and 
South  Africa d id not specify a requirement for aging .  Jamaica therefore requested that the reference 
to aging be deleted from the definition , as well as the reference to minimum and maximum congener 
levels  that did not find any parallel in other rum definition s of a longstanding and generally accepted 
nature either .  Finally , Jamaica stressed that its technical experts were willing to engage in f urther 
dialogue with the MERCOSUR technical experts who were drafting the regulation.  
7. The representative of Barbados  fully endorsed the concerns raised by Jamaica and believ ed 
that the MERCOSUR technical regulation could have a significant negative effect on tr ade from 
members of the West Indies  Rum and Spirits Producers Association , of which Barbados was a 
member .  Of special concern was the characterization of alcoholic beverages derived from sugar cane 
as being derived from simple alcoholic distillates a nd the regulation's reference to rum as being aged 
in whole or in part .  Barbados also requested the deletion of those references and indicated that their 
technical experts remained at the disposal of the MERCOSUR technical working group.  
8. The representativ e of Trinidad and Tobago  also supported the comments made by Jamaica 
and Barbados .  The inaccuracies in the description of the distillation process for the production of 
alcoholic beverages and the definition of rum would  have a negative effect on the trad e of distilled 
spirits by Caribbean producers .  Trinidad and Tobago was looking forward to receiving the response 
of Argentina  to its concerns  and would welcome a dialogue between experts on this matter . 
9. The representative of Mexico  shared  the comments mad e by previous speakers .  The 
definition of tequila  was of particular concern;   it did not correspond to Mexican legislation , which  
could be trac ked back to the 16th century, w hen the preparation of tequila was  first regulated .  
Moreover,  Mexico considered that this technical regulation did not meet  the requirements of the 
TBT  Agreement's Article  2.2, namely serving the purpose of the protection of consumers ' health or 
the prevention of deceptive practices.  Mexico had sent its comment s to Argentina  within t he foreseen 
time period .  However, a reply was received from the enquiry point that its comments had not  been 
examined by  its Technical Group 3 of MERCOSUR, which would be meeting again in October .  
Mexico urged Argentina to fulfil its obligation under Article 2.9.4 and  drew attention to the fact that 
as this was a MERCOSUR regulation, it would be implemented also by Brazil, Uruguay and 
Paraguay .  Therefore , those M embers should consider the comments presented to Argentina as an 
advance  notice to  other MERC OSUR  countries  as well.  
10. The representative of the Dominican Republic  supported the statements made by previous 
speakers and voiced concern that the regulation could have a detrimental and significant effect on the 
trade of spirit beverages which were disti lled from the Caribbean producers .  He also requested 
Argentina to provide answers to the concerns raised.  
11. The representative of the United States  associated herself with the previous comments and 
pointed out that the United States  had also provided commen ts.  Although this was a MERCOSUR 
regulation , she asked  why Argentina was the only MERCOSUR member to have notified  it.  She 
further  wondered whether the notified regulation would have any effect on the previous ly notifi ed 
regulation  by Brazil , G/TBT/N/BRA /135, on which concerns had already been raised .  
12. The representative of Cuba  asked  whether the proposed regulation was based on international 
standards and suggested that Argentina review it accordingly .  G/TBT/M/33  
Page 4 
 
 
13. The representative of  the European Communities  associated her self with the concerns 
expressed and stressed her delegation's  willingness to pursue discussions on this matter .   
14. The representative of Argentina  stressed that notification G/TBT/N/ARG/159 was only on a 
draft  regulation  (No. 01/04)  of the Common  Market Group and that it was a revision of the Common 
Market Group Resolution No. 77/94 .  It only altered the scope of distilled spirits of sugar cane, so 
rum, liquors and tequila  would not be affected by what was actually covered by Regulation No. 77/94 .  
During the 19th ordinary meeting of working subgroup N °3 of MERCOSUR held in  June 2004 , the 
national coordinators had considered the various comments relating to the draft made by 
MERCOSUR States Parties and by the delegations which  had intervened  today .  This group had 
decided to continue looking at the draft at the October meeting .  Therefore, the Argentinean 
representative stressed that the regulation was still in the draft stage and that the comments made by 
delegations would be given careful attentio n and consideration .  Also, Argentina was ready to contact 
all the delegations and their technical experts in order to discuss any technical question s which might  
arise .  
(ii) European Communities:  Directive on the Type -Approval of Motor Vehicles with Regard to 
their Re-Usability , Recyclability and Recoverability (G/TBT/N/EEC/61)  
15. The representative of Korea  pointed out  that he understood the objectives of the proposed 
Directive on the re cycling and recovery of vehicle  components and materials notified in 
G/TBT/ N/EEC/61 .  However, he felt that the burden on industry to comply with this directive was too 
heavy , as it covered not only new but also used cars .  Also, he requested the use of more concrete 
criteria to calculate the recyclability  and asked for an extens ion of  the period for comments .  
16. The representative of the European Communities  would  report this request back to Brussels .  
(iii) Switzerland:  Ordinance on the Emission Level of Passenger Cars with Compression Ignition 
Engines (G/TBT/N/CHE/39)  
17. The representati ve of the European Communities  recalled  that on 3  June 2004 it had 
submitted comments on the Swiss notification G/TBT/N/CHE/39  of a regulation on  the determination 
of the particle number emission level of passenger cars with compression ignition engines .  The 
European  Communities considered that the measurement methods for ultra -fine particles were not 
established with the necessary levels of accuracy and pointed out that the Swiss measure gave no time 
for the industry to install, calibrate and become famil iar with these new measurement methods .  Also , 
the UNECE Group of Experts on Pollution and Energy was working on a reliable system for 
measuring ultra -fine particles ;  therefore, unilateral action  to define such measurement methods would 
only result in tra de distortion and uncertainty .  The European  Communities reminded Switzerland of 
its obligations und er Articles 2.2. and 5.1.2, according to which technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures must  not be more trade restrictive than necessary .  Switzerland was invited to 
accept the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out in other states  and to provide 
answers to its comments.  
18. The representative of the United States  associated herself with the comments made by the 
European  Commun ities and poin ted out that the United States  had also provided comments  on the 
Swiss notification .  She shared the assessment by the European Communities regarding the near term 
viability of the use of particle counts to determine and regulate particular e missions from diesel 
powered vehicle s and noted  that the United States did not support this approach , due to the absence of 
sound scientific theories on the repeatability and reliability of such measurements .  There was also no 
supporting evidence at this time to make decisions on particular emission controls for public health 
improvements using a particle number system .  Therefore, she encouraged Switzerland to take the 
United States' comments into account .   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 5 
 
 
19. The representative of Switzerland  thanked the European  Communities and the United States  
for their comments and assured them that these would be  transmitted to the responsible authorities in 
capital .  However,  a response would not be provided  before the autumn sitting of Parliament, due to 
the national decision -making procedure, as the outcome of that sitting would have to be taken into 
account .  
(iv) Mexico :  Standard for Glazed Pottery Ware, Glazed Ceramic Ware and Porcelain Ware 
(G/TBT/N/MEX/69)  
20. The representative of the European Communities  reminded Mexic o that comments 
concerning notification G/TBT/N/MEX/69  had been submitted on 10 November 2003 .  He expressed 
his country's concern with regard to the lead and cadmium limits introduced by the notified draft 
measure .  These  were more stringent than those la id down in the relevant international IS O standards 
(ISO 6486 -1/2), which were  not being used as the basis of this measure , contrary to the TBT 
obligation  to use international standards as a basis for technical regulations .  The European 
Communities hoped that the Mexican authorities would accept the results of conformity assessment 
procedures of ceramic tableware produced in the European Communities in compliance with ISO 
standards and invited Mexico  to provide answers to the comments sent .   
21. The represent ative of Mexico  thanked the E uropean Communities  for its comments  and 
recalled  that, as indicated by Mexico on 1 August 2003, this regulation had been published for public  
consultation .  During the course of the last five years, the regulation had been rev ised in its entirety.   
In the near future , the Official Bulletin would publish all comments and replies , given that the 
working group had completed its work .  He further stressed that the regulation was partially based on 
the ISO 6486 -2 and 7086 -2 standard s of 1981 .  Also, the draft regulation had been subject to a 
regulatory impact study that had established that the benefits were actually higher than the costs .  
(v) United Arab Emirates:  Conformity Assessment System  and Halal Certification  
22. The representative  of the United States  indicated that it had seen  Press reports according to 
which the United Arab Emirates was planning to launch a new conformity assessment system, which 
would take effect in August .  She wondered  whether these reports were accurate and w hether the 
United Arab Emirates would  notify the proposal as required under the TBT Agreement.  Furthermore, 
she had become aware of a new requirement for Halal  certification:   as of October , the 
United  Arab  Emirates' authorities would have to accredit dir ectly centres  located in other countries 
and would not recognize those previously accepted .  She further noted  that the United States had 
recently tried to use the enquiry point of the United Arab Emirates, but its e-mail contacts d id not 
seem to function.   Therefore, she urged the United Arab Emirates to update its contact details and  
requested the Secretariat to transmit the above -mentioned  concerns to the delegation of the 
United  Arab  Emirates.   
2. Concerns  Previously Raised  
(i) United States:   Measure on Refil lable Lighters  
23. The representative of the United States  recalled  a concern raised at the last meeting  by China 
on a regulation of the US Consumer Product Safety Council (CPSC)  concerning refillable lighters .  
China had requested a notification of the measur e and a scientific justification for setting a 
relationship between the price and the safety of lighters.  On 14 April 2004 , the CPSC had published a 
notice in the Federal Register to clarify that the figure in its safety standard for cigarette lighters ha d 
been adjusted for inflation .  The Regulation , which  was in force since 1993 and had been preceded by 
the publication of a draft and an opportunity for comment s (which  had been  considered ), was 
therefore neither new nor amended .  The recent announcement h ad not increased the scope of 
products covered by the Regulation .  The only change was the adjustment of the way disposable G/TBT/M/33  
Page 6 
 
 
lighters were defined in terms of customs valuation or an ex-factory price  of under US$  2.  The 
adjustment had occurred in November 2003 and the CPSC had only provided a notice – first as a 
press release on 5 January  2004 a nd then in the Federal Register – as it had been  concerned that there 
might be confusion about the timing in the increase without  a specific notice .  The United Stat es 
officials had since then met with their Chinese counterparts bilaterally and had provided further 
details of  the rationale for the original Regulation .  The Uni ted States remained of the view  that it did 
not need to notify the adjustments.  
24. The represent ative of China  informed  the Committee that China had held bilateral meetings 
with the United  States.  S he appreciated the documents provided by the U nited States on the drafting 
of the standard and the rational e for a relationship between safety and price for lighters .  These 
documents would be brought back to capital and studied .  However,  even assuming that the rationale 
for the measure was scientific, in China's view the change of price for lighters in the safety standard 
of the United States meant the c hange of coverage of the regulation , which would be an amendment 
of a significant nature within the scope of TBT Article  1.6, and hence requested the United States to 
make a notification .  Furthermore , the internati onal standard ISO 9 994 for lighters had b ecome 
available last year and she asked why this standard could not meet the objective of the United States.  
(ii) Brazil:  Decree on Beverages and Spirits (G/TBT/N/BRA/135)  
25. The representative of Barbados  reiterated  his concerns regarding  Brazil's Decree.  Of 
particular concern  were:   the definition of rum and similar spirits ;  the need for any such definition to 
explicitly recognize that rum and similar spirits could be produced exclusively from sugar cane ;  and 
the reference concerning the production of differe nt alcoholic spirits by a single alcoholic distillation 
or by the distillation of fermented mash .  Barbados was still awaiting a response from Brazil.  
26. The representative of the United States  supported  the comments of Barbados and recalled  that 
her country' s concerns had been expressed at the last meeting.  Brazil had  yet to notify the measure 
and to provide a substantive response to the concerns raised.  
27. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that her delegation  had submitted 
comments on 18 January 2004  concerning the definition of rum and cachaza  and the minimum 
alcohol content for rum , which could create problems of classification when imported into the 
European  Communities .  She requested Brazil to provide answers to the comments sent.  
28. The representative of Jamaica  reiterated her concerns as raised in  previous meetings and in 
writing.  Jamaica  was still awaiting replies, while remaining open to informal discussion s. 
29. The representative of the Dominican Republic  requested Brazil to respond to  the concerns 
expressed in a communication sent in February 2004 to the national enquiry point and to the 
Permanent Mission of Brazil.  
30. The representative of Brazil  thanked the delegations of Barbados, the United States , the 
European  Communities , Jamaica an d the Dominican Republic for their comments, which  would be 
conveyed to capital .  Brazil was considering the possibility of amending Decree No. 4851, whose 
objective was to establish rules for cacha za and not to distort trade from the Caribbean to other 
markets .  As work was still in progress, Brazil was not in a position to provide further details, but 
remained open to hold ing technical consultations with interested countries.  
(iii) India:  Homologation of Vehicles (G/TBT/N/IND/9)  
31. The representative of the Europ ean Communities  had raised concerns at the last meeting on 
the issue of the importation of vehicles and vehicle components into the Indian market .  His concerns 
were about the practical problems linked to the importation of components and aggregates for ve hicle  G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 7 
 
 
production and the fact that the Indian type approval test agency (ARAI ) did not seem to have 
appropriate test facilities for large engines .  Manufacturers had to establish their own facilities or use 
those of competitors, which created problems of u nfair competition .  Those procedures were 
considered to be excessively burdensome , and he requested India to solve the problem.  
32. The representative of India  had previously responded to some of the issues and had explained 
the rat ionale of the measure on sec ond-hand vehicles .  On the issue of ARAI facilities in Pune , he 
emphasized that the upgrading of facilities in any country was a continuous process .  He understood  
that ARAI had been accepting certification from officially authorized and recognized testing  agencies 
in Europe for those items and components for which there were no c ommensurate facilities in India;  
however, he  could not comment on it at the moment .  He would  inform the authorities in capital of the 
concerns and he expressed a willingness to e ngage in bilateral discussions to arrive at a better 
understanding of the measure.  
(iv) European Communities:  Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of 
Chemicals – "REACH" (G/TBT/W/208 and G/TBT/N/EEC/52 and Add.1.)  
33. The representative of Singapore  drew the attention of the Committee  to the fact that , at its last 
meeting , some ASEAN countries  had indicated th eir intention  to look at the REACH proposal and 
comment on it, which they had done in writing in the meantime .  On behalf of the ASEAN  countries, 
Singap ore supported the rights of its trading partners to take measures to protect health, safety and the 
environment .  While Singapore  welcomed the improvements in the revised draft REACH regulation, it 
remained concerned about the potential a dverse impact of such a complex and broad regulatory 
initiative on international chemical and downstream trade .  Singapore was particularly concerned that 
the requirements under REACH, though non -discriminatory in appearance, could be discriminatory in 
practice, as non -EU producers and suppliers would face greater difficulties in complying with the 
complex requirements as co mpared to their EU  counterparts .  Moreover,  compliance in itself was seen 
as so onerous as to constitute a significant trade barrier, p articularly for developing countries and Small 
and Medium -Sized Enterprises (SMEs), which m ight not have sufficient resources and expertise to meet 
the proposed requirements .  The current scope of coverage would have an impact on a wide range of 
downstream  producers, many of whom wo uld not be able to comply at a reasonable cost .  Of further 
concern were the issues of retrospective liability, lengthy waiting periods for authorization, and on -the-
spot trade that could negatively affect traders in the ASEAN re gion.   
34. In order to minimize the negative impacts o f REACH, especially on SMEs and developing 
countries, Singapore requested the European Communities , on behalf of ASEAN countries  to:  
(i) reform its current legislation on sharing of information to ensure that smaller and non -EU companies 
had easier access to the necessary information ;  (ii) explicitly state that all substances need only be tested 
once; (iii)  adopt a risk -based approach founded  on prioritization and sound science ;  (iv) streamline the 
various processes in a single a gency;   (v) reduce the scope of REACH and allow for broader, clear -cut 
exemptions, thereby reducing the burden of downstream producers and traders ;  and (vi) address any 
other specific concerns raised .  It was also important that  the E uropean  Communities  incorporate special 
and differential treatment, as well a s technical assistance program mes for developing countries and in 
particular their SMEs .  Taking into account these concerns, Singapore  suggested that the timeframe for 
the implementation of REACH be extended for five years.  
35. The representative of Thailand  raised concerns about the scope of REACH, applying both to the 
manufacture and import of all chemicals as well as any finished products that contain ed chemicals, for 
which p roducers and importers would be held liable .  Even the revised proposal remained largely 
unclear, too complex, overly expe nsive, burdensome as well as costly and had the potential of causing 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade, especially for deve loping countries, disrupting 
international chemical markets and downstream manufacturers, adversely impacting trade, inhibiting 
innovation and limiting global competitiveness .  As areas of special concern that were likely to incur 
excessive cost s and diffi culties  and thereby disadvantage  industries competing in the EU market, she G/TBT/M/33  
Page 8 
 
 
pointed at :  (i) the test to identify the type and quantity of substances contained in articles, which was 
complicated and expensive ;  (ii) registration fees to cover the administr ative costs of the Agency ;  
(iii) the need to appoint a representative in the EU to fulfil  the obligations on importers ;  (iv) the 
preparation of data (CSA and CSR) if the substance ha d not been registered or the substance 
manufacturer refuse d to do so ;  (v) the negotiation with the substance manufacturer to include 
identified uses in the registration ;  (vi) the mandatory data -sharing principle allowing the first 
registrant, who would be likely to reside in the EU or other developed countries, to charge 50  per cent  
of the cost from each of the subsequent registrants upon their property rights , which could make it 
unfeasible for developing countries to export, especially downstream product s;  and (vii) the rules on 
the substitution for less hazardous chemical s or changing the current production process or method .  
She also pointed out that each stage of REACH was extremely time -consuming.  
36. As Thailand was not a chemical manufacturer  but a chemical importer, these chemicals were 
only used as minor ingredients or  in a small quantity, so that the article producers had no bargaining 
power to demand further information from suppliers if they refused to provide such data .  Thailand 
was concerned that the REACH system was neither WTO consistent nor harmonized with the UN 
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), and other criteria 
set by the IFCS and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) .  Thailand  
suggested that the accreditation of recognized institutions  in other countries, such as EPA in the 
United States, could save time and costs to the downstream users on evaluation .  The legislation on 
chemicals should be justified and transparent and must not  create discrimination among countries or 
regions .  Due to  the far -reaching impacts on a wide range of industries , the time frame for the 
registration of products should be extended for five years and possibly longer to allow developing 
countries such as Thailand to adapt their production methods before the regula tion was strictly 
enforced .  Thailand  also suggested that the "identified uses" , as mentioned in Article s 3(25) 
and 29(6-7), be a heading in the data sheet, which the chemical manufacturer would be  obliged to 
supply to the chemical users without having to be so requested, to avoid obstacles to chemical user s.  
Also, the scope of Article 6 should exempt substances in articles (such as polymers) from registration, as 
developing countries would either have difficulties controlling or be unable to control and a lready have to 
bear the costs for testing .  Furthermore, Article 22, allowing the notifie r of substances under 
Directive  67/548/EEC to automatically become the first registrant under REACH and to charge 50  per 
cent of the registration costs on subsequent r egistrant s, wa s unfair to subsequent registrants .  In addition , 
there seemed to be a lack of correspondence between Article 26 (2)(b) referring  to phase -in substances 
manufactured or imported in quantities of 1 ton or more per year  and Article  21(2), which  referred  to 100 
tons or more per year.  
37. The representative of the United States  commended  the European Communities  for its 
notification of the REACH proposal before the adoption of the common position  by the 
European  Council, which allowed for a more meanin gful opportunity to provide comments , in 
consistency  with TBT obligations .  The United States had provid ed comments and reiterated its 
interest in the proposal .5  She noted that the scope of the REACH regulation was still unclear and that 
it could affect t he majority of US exports to the EU of over a US$  150 billion in 2003. Wi th the recent 
expansion of the EU to 25 countries , the potential impact would be even greater .  She was still 
concerned that the proposal appeared to adopt a particularly costly, burd ensome and complex 
approach , which could prove unworkable in its implementation, disrupt global trade and adversely 
impact innovation .  It also discounted substantial resource constraints facing governments and 
industry .  Furthermore , some uncertainties remained regarding :  (i) the decision -making process , 
involving member State authorities , the European Commission and  the new  Chemicals Agency , such 
as the question of which chemicals and which uses would be subject to restrictions once REACH was 
implemented ;  and (ii) unclear and imprecise regulatory standards , i.e. whether or not industry c ould 
 
5 Comments are available on the website of the United States Mission to the European Union at 
www.useu.be.   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 9 
 
 
"demonstrate that the risk from the use of the substance can be adequate ly controlled or that the 
socio -economic benefits outweigh the risk" .   
38. The United States enc ouraged the European Communities  to:  (i) reduce the scope of the 
regulation to better focus on substances that were likely to pose the highest risk and ensure robust, 
science -based regulation ;  (ii) to develop an EU approach , which supplement ed rather tha n supplant ed 
international cooperative efforts to effectively address the risk posed by existing chemicals ;  (iii) to 
clarify, simplify and enhance transparency concerning the process by which regulatory decisions 
would  be made ;  and (iv) to ensure that th e regulation's impact, both positive and negative, was fully 
and transparently assessed .  As the European Council and Parliament would consider and revise the 
Commission's proposal , these institutions should  also ensure that the approach wa s fully consiste nt 
with the EU's WTO obligations .  In view of the scope, the far reaching implications and the global 
interest in this extensive regulation, the United States urged the European Communities  to provide for 
meaningful consideration of the comments received a nd requested that the TBT  Committee be kept 
informed as the draft regulation continue d to move forward through the EU's decision -making 
process .   
39. The representative of Malaysia  raised two specific concerns in addition to common concerns 
of the ASEAN count ries.  He noted that the chemical preparations formulated or manufactured in the 
EU were exempted from registration requirements according to Article 5 of the regulation , which was 
believed to be inconsistent with GATT Article  III.  Also, according to Arti cle 6a , non-EU-based 
suppliers were required to appoint an EU -based representative to whom they ha d disclosed their 
formulations for purposes of registration, which could compromise the protection of their intellectual 
property rights .  He requested the Eu ropean Communities to give due consideration to these concerns.  
40. The representative of Australia  noted that on 18 June 2004 Australia had submitted comments 
on the REACH regulation .  He welcomed the changes in the proposal but remained nonetheless 
concerned  that the draft regulation was more restrictive than n ecessary to fulfil a legitimate objective 
and threatened to have disproportionate negative effects on like products originating from third 
countries , including Australia .  Therefore , he supported the co ncerns of many of the preceding 
speakers and was looking forward to a response from the European Communities.  
41. The representative of Japan  appreciated the European Communities ' efforts to consider his 
country's  comments o n the propos ed REACH regulation, whi ch had improved in comparison  to the 
previous  version .  However, Japan was still of the view that further improvements were  need ed in 
order to avoid negative impact on trade and investment .  As a response to the European Communities ' 
notification of 21 January 2004, Japan had submitted comments explaining  that:  (i) the REACH 
system should not impose excessive burdens of compliance on broader industrial sectors in light of its 
objectives ;  (ii) it should not impede exports to the EU market nor create unnece ssary obstacles to 
international trade ;  (iii) it should  be consistent with international harmonization activities, like those 
of the OECD and other international organizati ons;  and (iv) it should ensure standardization, 
transparency and fairness in its a pplication in each member State .  He stressed the need to introduce a 
mechanism to avoid duplication of risk assessments and hazard assessments for the registration of 
chemicals, in order to ensure that REACH did not impose excessive obligations or burdens , or create 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade .  In the APEC Chemical Dialogue held in May, many 
economies raised concerns about the costs and burdens of complying with REACH.  Furthermore, at 
the June Meeting of APEC Ministers Responsible for Tr ade, Ministers expressed continuing concern 
over REACH 's adverse trade implications as a result of its complex regulatory system .  While Japan 
appreciated the transparency and openness of the process followed by the European Communities, it 
requested that it address  the concerns of its trade partners, including Japan.  
42. The representative of Uruguay  reserved his country's  right to continue its as yet unfinalized 
technical examination of the new draft regulation and its possible negative effects  on trade in th e 
sectors involved.   G/TBT/M/33  
Page 10 
 
 
43. The representative of Mexico  reiterate d his concerns with respect to the REACH system, on 
which Mexico  had submitted comments within the time -limit  and was still awaiting a reply .  Mexico 
wished  to keep in contact  with the European Co mmunities in order to find alternatives to this system, 
as the burden of the proposed system would , in certain cases, be insurmountable  for Mexican 
industry .   
44. The representative of Canada  reminded the European Communities of its written comments 
submitted  on 21 June 2004 and expected them to be taken into account .  Canada shared the goals of 
REACH to protect human health and the environment, promote competitiveness of the chemical 
industry, increase transparency and increase integration with international efforts .  Canada also  
believed that international cooperation was essential to achieve those goals, as the assessment a nd 
management of chemical risk wa s a global challenge .  The ongoing consultation was seen as a clear 
signal of the European Communities ' willingness not only to benefit from the experience of other 
jurisdictions but also to fulfil  its obligations under the TBT Agreement.   In its  written comments, 
Canada outlined specific provisions that might require rethinking in order to reduce the risk o f 
creating unnecessary barriers to trade, such as the following seven items:  (i) the registration process 
was seen as unnecessarily costly, burdensome and too complex ;  (ii) the criteria and procedure for 
including a substance in Annexes II and III lacked  clarity ; (iii)  the possible anti -competitive behaviour  
of manufacturers resulting from voluntary consortia ;  (iv) the use of production volume thresholds 
instead of an incremental approach to information submission ;  (v) the apparent unwillingness of the 
European Communities to accept the use of data generated outside the EU in an importers ' 
registration ;  (vi) the absence of clear rules for the fair allocation of costs by consortia members ;  and 
(vii) the extra -territorial application of the EU's policy o n animal testing .  Canada wished to continue 
the ongoing dialogue on chemical policy with the European Communities,  including on regulatory 
cooperation.  
45. The representative of China  stated that the Chinese Government fully understood the 
legitimate objectiv es of the European Communities to protect human health and environment, but was 
interested in knowing how the European Communities would guarantee that the REACH proposal 
would not impose restrictions beyond  what wa s necessary to fulfil  these objectives .  Having submitted 
comments on the REACH notification on 21 June 2004, she believed that the definition of 
"manufacturer " in REACH would accord less favourable  treatment to manufacturers outside the 
European Communities and their intellectual property rights  would not be properly protected .  Also, 
the payment of 50  per cent of the total cost for sharing information with relation to tests on vertebrate 
animals was not in all cases justified by an animal protection objective, deprived foreign enterprises 
of a c ompetitive advantage , was too high and would seriously restrict the production and export to the 
European Communities  of relevant products of SMEs in developing countries.  
46. Furthermore, China considered it  unnecessary to have all chemicals subjected to the REACH 
regulation , especially those substances whose characteristics and performance were already clear 
through their long -term use .  It would seem a waste of resources to ask countries to undergo the 
registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction procedures again .  Also, Article 6.1 of REACH , 
which required registration of chemicals where they were present in articles in quantities totalling  
over 1 ton per producer or importer per year , would bring heavy burdens to all  chemical -using 
enterprises, a s the importers would be required to prove that the chemicals in their products d id not 
pose a risk, rather than the authorities having to show the presence of a risk .  China  wondered  why 
such a reversal of the burden of proof, also with respect to chemica ls that had long been used without 
any known risks, was necessary to meet a legitimate objective .  China also asked how the 1 ton 
threshold would be calculated in practice and how the concept of "product type" would be defined and 
interpreted .  In addition , China believed that the REACH regime should not be based simply upon the 
volume of production and/or import of chemicals , but their potential risks should be considered as 
well.  In accordance with the TBT Agreement, the European Communities should also accept the 
testing data provided by non -EC laboratories fulfilling ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirements for the 
Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories and further shorten its registration timeframe.   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 11 
 
 
47. China considered that the European Communities had not conduct ed a sufficient impact 
assessment of the negative effects  of REACH  on the chemicals industry in developing countries, 
given the huge gap between the European Communities and developing countries in production 
technology and production level of chemicals .  The new regulation could trigger the transfer of many 
raw material -type industries , characterized by low added value but high pollution , to developing 
countries, hence confronting developing countries with the risk of "chemical pollution" .  Therefore, 
China requested that the European Communities explain how the process of preparing the REACH 
regulation complied with the TBT Agreement and in particular Article 12.3 .  Finally, she stressed that 
eleven ministries, trade associations, large ente rprises and research institutes had participated in 
comments on the proposal .  She the refore hoped that the European  Communities would take them into 
consideration and provide a written response.  
48. The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the European Co mmunities for its flow chart 
specifying actions to be taken and requirements to be met in relation to different provisions of the 
REACH proposal and associated herself with the concerns previously raised .  Of special concern were 
the registration requireme nts of substances in articles and the volume based -approach of management .  
Chinese Taipei believed that not only finished articles, but  also chemical substances with low or no 
risk concerns should be exempted from REACH .  A risk-based approach to manageme nt instead of a  
volume -based approach should be adopted , considering the legitimate objective pursued .  She hope d 
that the comments would be taken into account and looked forward to being informed of any changes . 
49.  The representative of Chile  indicated that  his country  had already made comments to the 
European Communities on REACH and discussed them .  He still had many concerns with respect to 
the increase in transaction costs .  Chile was likely t o be most affected by the volume -based , and not 
the risk-based , approach of the regulation .  Also, different compositions of the same product might 
require separate registrations in the case of complex chemicals, which could become repetitive and 
bureaucratic .  He was also concerned about aspects of the operation and  the sanctions applied to 
countries  and their uniform application .  Moreover, the effect of the regulation  on Chilean products , 
using these chemicals  but not releasing them into the environment, was unclear .  He sought further 
clarification on the issue of  whether tests needed to be carried out in the European Union or outside .  
He requested the European  Communities to continue to simplify the proposal.   
50. The representative of Korea  associated himself with the previous statements .  Korea had 
submitted commen ts bilaterally and requested that , in the case of chemicals with simple 
physio -chemical characteristics , the EU authorities accept data from internationally accredited 
regulatory bodies  such as the ILAC  (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) . 
51. The representative of Brazil  indicated  that comments on the REACH regulation had been sent 
on 21  June 2004  to the European Communities ' enquiry point and requested a response.  
52. The representative of Colombia  reiterated  the concern of the Colombian pharmace utical 
industry and supported the request made by some delegations that the European Communities make a 
general presentatio n on REACH in the TBT Committee, in addition to providing answers to 
comments.  
53. The representative of the European Communities  noted t hat it had received written comments 
from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the 
United  States on the REACH Proposal .  The European Communities would provide written answer s 
to all comments and a response would  also be published o n the new web page of the 
European  Commission dedicated to the TBT notification procedure.  G/TBT/M/33  
Page 12 
 
 
(v) European Communities:  Regulation on Certain Wine Sector Products (G/TBT/N/EEC/15, 
Corr. 1 -2 and G/TBT/N/EEC/57)  
54. The representative of New Zealan d once again rai sed concerns over Regulations 753/2002 
and 316/2004 on wine labelling , which had been implemented since  15 March 2004 .  New Zealand 
had commented in detail on Regulation 753/2002 and the potential impact of EC policies in this area 
that str etched back to 1998 .  At the last meeting , New Zealand had supported the amendments made 
to Regulation 753/2002 through Regulation 316/2004 and in particular  the acknowledgement that 
traditional terms or expressions were not Geographical Indications (GI) and should not be treated as 
such.  She also supported the amendment allowing alternative regulatory approaches to be used, but 
remained disappointed that the y did not go further.   New Zealand had submitted detailed written 
comments in August 2002 , both on substantive and procedural concerns .  On substance, New Zealand 
was concerned that the limitation on the use of terms relating to vine varieties, production methods, 
and vintage to wines carrying a GI disregarded fundamental TBT requirements , as it might p revent 
accurate consumer information .  On procedur e, New Zealand was concerned that the notification and 
consultation of Regulation 753/2002 fell short of TBT requirements .  While New  Zealand  welcomed 
the delay  provided for  the implementation of the Regula tion, it was disappointed at the short time 
period between publication and notificat ion of the amending Regulation  316/2004 and its 
implementation, which was not sufficient for M embers' comments to be taken into account in 
accordance with Article 2.9 of th e TBT Agreement .  Furthermore, many of New  Zealand's concerns 
had not been addressed by Regulation  316/2004 and a written response had  never been received .  New 
Zealand  reiterated its request  to receive a response  in light of the promise given by the 
Europ ean Communities at the last meeting to get back to all interested M embers .  The EC's overall 
approach to wine labelling and regulation as reflected in Regulations  753/2002 and 316/2004 was in 
conflict with TBT principles , and in particular with the obligat ion not to create unnecessary barriers to 
trade and to ensure that technical regulations are not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a 
legitimate objective contained in Article 2  of the TBT Agreement . 
55. The representative of Mexico  was disappoint ed that his country's  comments regarding 
Regulation 753/2002 had neither been responded to nor taken into account .  Moreover,  the special 
conditions of a developing country, like Mexico, to comply with the regulations , and elements of 
special and different ial treatment  had not been considered .  He believe d that Regulation  753/2002 
violated a number of fundamental procedural and substantive provisions of the TBT  Agreement :  it 
did not have  a legitimate objective , violated  the principle of proportionality, an d introduced  an 
unnecessary technical obstacle to international trade .  Even the revised regulation did not address 
Mexico's concerns .  He hope d that Mexico's comments would be taken into account .   
56. The representative of Australia  supported the comments ma de by Mexico and especially 
New  Zealand, which reflected many of Australia's concerns raised at a number of meetings .  He was 
concerned that the European Communities , wine label ling regulation was not TBT consistent  and 
requested a written response .   
57. The representative of Uruguay  supported the comments made by New Zealand, Mexico and 
Australia, given that the Regulation would  also affect the wi ne-producing sector in Uruguay .  
Uruguay also reiterated its concern about EC Regulation 316/2004 , which went  beyo nd the disciplines 
established by the TRIPS and TBT Agreement s.  The approach taken by the European Communities 
on traditional expressions and varieties of vine and grapes  implied the imposition of significant trade 
barrier s. He stressed  that t raditional e xpressions - or generic expressions - were not linked to 
geography.  "Traditional expressions" were not provided for in the TRIPS Agreement , nor did they 
meet the characteristi cs of geographical indications.  T hey did not refer to a quality which identifie d a 
product as coming from a territory of a Member or a region of this territory  and, t herefore , could not  
be attributed  to a specific  geographic al origin.   He concluded that, while g eographical indications  
were  linked to the specific geograph ical area whe re the product came  from, traditional expressions 
were,  by definition , terms that had become , through use and custom, part of the wine -growing  world.   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 13 
 
 
They had  been used systematically by all countries having a wine -growing culture and tradition.  It 
was, therefore, difficult to determine  who had been  the first to use a specific expression and had the 
right to regulate its use .  He felt  that regulating the use of such expressions by third parties  not only 
went beyond TRIPS, but also ran counter to other fun damental WTO provisions, notably the 
obligation under the TBT Agreement not to create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.   
Similarly, with regard to grape varieties, he asserted that the names of grapes and their synonyms 
could not be linked with  the term "geographical indications" and, therefore, could not be protected for 
reasons linked to geographical origin.  The designations of various forms of grape responded to 
general technical criteria, which were of universal use.  They had also been par t of wine -growing 
traditions and continued to be used as technological and scientific terms.  He concluded that 
legislation could not go beyond the strictly technical area of label ling, excluding reference to specific 
traditional expressions.  He announced  that his comments would be submitted to the relevant EC 
authorities in Brussels.  
58. The representative of the United States  associated herself with the comments made and 
reminded the Committee that this item had been the subject of several notifications, wri tten 
comments, bilateral and plurilateral discussions .  The United States continued to have serious 
substantive and procedural concerns with the wine label ling regulations .  At the last meeting , the 
United States had asked the European Communities to suspe nd the enforcement  of its regulation to 
leave  an opportunity for comments , to take them into account before the final adoption , and in order 
to have a reasonable interval of time before the entry into force as required under the TBT Agreement . 
59. The represen tative of Argentina  shared the views expressed so far and felt that the modified 
regulation was still inconsistent  with WTO Agreements and , in particular , constituted an obstacle to 
the exports of wines to EC markets in breach of the TBT Agreement.  
60. The rep resentative of the European Communities  explained that amendments to Community 
label ling rules had been adopted on 20 February 2004 through Commission Regulation 316/2004, 
which took into account comments relating to Commission Regulation 753/2002 raised i n the 
TBT  Committee , in the two rounds of informal consultations and also submitted in writing .  Further 
written comments had been received subsequent to this regulation from Uruguay , and the 
European  Communities would reflect on all comments , including th ose raised orally in the 
TBT  Committee and would be pleased to pursue explanatory discussions with interested delegations 
in the near future.  
(vi) Korea:  Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars  
61. The representative of the United States  associated herse lf with a concern raised by the 
European Communities at the last meeting on  Korea's average fuel economy program me.  She 
reminded Korea of its notific ation obligation under the TBT A greement and indicated that the United 
States had been in contact with Kor ean authorities bilaterally and had submitted comments.  
62. The representative of Japan  supported Korea 's efforts to reduce green house gas emissions and 
its commitment to improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles in the lower transportation sector, but 
remain ed concerned that Korea's new fuel efficiency standard might lead to an excessive technical 
regulation to imported car manufacturers .  He requested  that Korea make a TBT notification at an 
early appropriate stage when amendments could still be introduced a nd comments taken into account 
in accordance with Article  2.9.2  of the TBT Agreement .  
63. The representative of Korea  explained that the rationale  behind the introduction of the  
average fuel econom y standard was for environmental and energy saving purposes .  Nevertheless, t he 
drafting of the regulation and the consideration of  comments from industry and major trading partners  
was not finished .  In spite of the stated  concerns, Korea saw no discrimination between domestic cars 
and imported cars , but intended to  provide a longer gra ce period for imported cars to address these G/TBT/M/33  
Page 14 
 
 
concerns .  He suggested continuing  the consultations with Japan, the United States and the 
European  Communities.   
(vii) India:  Labelling of Pre -packaged Consumer Products and Mandatory Quality S tandards for 
133 products (G/TBT/N/IND/1)  
64. The representative of the European Communities  reminded India of its  comments on 
notification G/TBT/N/IND/1  on 9 March 2002  concerning the two texts notified under the same code 
and reiterated the request to receiv e answers thereto .   
65. The representative of India  pointed out that India had discussed these measures bilaterally in 
an attempt to clarify their rationale .  He emphasized that the same requirements  were  also applied to 
domestically manufactured products .  In the  case of new regulations, equivalent conditions would 
immediately be ensured for imported products .  As a result of the review of the  regulations on some 
steel items listed in the certification list of the Ministry of Steel, the mandatory requirements  for 
imports of all of these items had been dispensed with .  He also expressed India's willingness to 
continue discussion with the European Communities.  
(viii) Korea:  Import of Fish Heads  
66. The representative of  New Zealand  reiterated her country's concerns , for the fourth time, on 
the issue of fish head imports to Korea .  She was disappointed that, despite specific requests , Korea 
had not provided legal justification for its measure banning imports of edible fish heads .  The 
concerns had not changed since the last  meeting and, as set out in a follow -up written statement 
provided to Korea , New Zealand continued to believe Korea's meas ures to be in violation of 
GATT  Article  XI.1 or the relevant provisions of the TBT Agreement .  She announced that 
New  Zealand was now actively working with other interested exporting countries and would like to 
have a discussion with Korea on principles for quickly removing restrictions on trade in line with 
Korea's WTO commitments.  
67. The representative of the European Communities  shared t he concerns expressed by the 
delegation of New Zealand and invited Korea to address these issues.  
68. The representative of Norway  associated himself with the statements made and the concerns 
previously e xpressed .  He hope d that Korea  and the other concerned M embers would find a mutually 
satisfactory solution as soon as possible.  
69. The representative of Korea  explained that Korea's main objective  concerning the regulation 
of hake head imports was health protection, which was articula ted under several relevant 
WTO  Agreements .  As stressed at the last meeting, this issue needed to be dealt with very cautiously, 
taking into account its social and political impacts .  Korea was willing to discuss with New Zealand 
how to work out the legitimate standards and requirement s to guarantee consumers' health protection , 
and the relevant Korean authorities remained open for bilateral consultation .  Korea had also sought to 
accommodate the concerns raised by the European Communities and Norway and hoped for some 
more detailed con sultations.  
(ix) Netherlands: "Vos"  Bill on Wood Products  (G/TBT/N/NLD/62) 6  
70. The representative of Canada  was pleased to se e the direction of the recent amendments 
brought forward on the "Vos"  Bill covering forest products, notified in G/TBT/N/NLD/62 .  However,  
she was still concerned with a number of provisi ons within the revised proposal  that Canada believed 
 
6 Concerns were rai sed for the first time on this regulation in November 1998 (G/TBT/M/13, para. 5) in 
relation to notification G/TBT/Notif.98.448).   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 15 
 
 
were discriminatory and trade restrictive .  She thanked the Netherlands  for the opportunity to provide 
written comments on its draft legislation and indic ated that formal comments would be submitted to 
the Dutch enquiry point by the end of July 2004 upon completion of the legal assessment of the 
revised bill .  She expected the Canadian comments to be taken into account.  
71. The representative of the European Co mmunities  informed Canad a that the draft notified by 
the Netherlands was being examined at the European level to assess its compatibility with Community 
law and that a dialogue on the draft was in place between the European Commission and the Dutch 
authori ties.  The European Communities further pointed out that , as yet, no comments had been 
received from third countries .  However, written answers would be provided to all comments 
received, once the examination of the draft had been  carried out  at the EC lev el. 
(x) New Zealand:  Ban on the Importation of Trout  
72. The representative of Canada  recalled his  country's concern regarding the New  Zealand ban 
on the importation of trout based on an order entitled "Customs Import Prohibition (Trout) Order 
1998" .  The  ban was put in place , as stated by New Zealand , on a temporary basis .  Canada had made 
several high level representations to New Zealand on that issue since 1998 and had raised the issue at 
several meetings of the TBT Committee, including those of October 2001 an d March 2002 .  Prior to 
the October 2001 meeting, Canada was informed of the extension of  the ban until 7 November 2004 .  
The ban ha d now been in place since 7 December 1998 .  Canada was disappoint ed by  the measure and 
by the fact that it had never receive d science -based evidence in support of the ban .  Canada sought  
confirma tion fro m New Zealand that the ban would expire this year.  
73. The representative of New Zealand  pointed out that , as she had not been given advance notice 
that Canada intended to  raise  this issue , she  was not in a position to comment in detail, but would 
report back to capital and speak with the Canadian delegate on this issue.  
(xi) European Communities:  Traceability and Labelling of Biotech Food and Feed Products 
(G/TBT/N/EEC /6-7 and Add.1 -3; G/TBT/N/EEC/53 and Add.1 ) 
74. The representative of Canada  recalled  that at the March 2004 meeting, Canada had raised 
concerns regarding the European Communities traceability and label ling of biotech food and feed 
products (G/TBT/N/EEC/6 -7 and Add .1-3; G/TBT/N /EEC/53 and Add .1).  Canada remained 
concerned that the Regulations , which entered in to force  on 18 April 2004 , were overly burdensome 
and created unnecessary barriers to trade for Canadian exporters .  Canada would continue to monitor 
implementation to ens ure that Canadian exports were not delayed .  She stressed that the label ling and 
traceability measures created uncertainty for exporters and that the European Commission had not 
been forthcoming in clarifying the application of these Regulation s.  In the a bsence of clear guidance , 
it was unclear how Canadian exporters, especially small manufacturers of value added products, 
would be able to comply with these measures .  Regarding the recent notificat ion G/TBT/N/EEC/53 
including  Add. 1 of the Commission Recomm endation regarding sampling and detection, Canada 
remained concerned as to how traceability and labelling  would be implemented , given the absence of 
segregation systems and internationally accepted testing methodologies to validate the presence of 
GMOs.  
75. The representative of the European Communities  pointed out that the measures concerning 
traceability and label ling of GMOs  were notified in G/TBT/N/EEC/6 -7 plus the addenda , to keep 
Members informed .  Likewise, the draft Commission recommendation on technica l guidance for the 
sampling and detection of genetically modified organisms and material produced from genetically 
modified organisms had been notified in February  2004 in G/TBT/N/EEC/53 ;  an addendum with an 
updated version taking into account the comment s received had also been notified .  Therefore, a 
highly transparent approach had been pursued at every stage .  The regulation relating to the 
traceability and label ling of GMOs was intended to facilitate product withdrawal in the case of G/TBT/M/33  
Page 16 
 
 
unforeseen adverse  effects on human health or the environment  after product authorization .  It was 
also intended to facilitate the implementation of risk management measures such as post -market 
monitoring, thereby reassuring the European consumer .  In addition , the measures  served the better 
functioning o f the EU market and facilitated  trade by evening  out differences between member States' 
legislative and administrative rules on traceability of biotech products.   However, it remained  the 
responsibility of EU member States to ensure that  inspections and control measures were carried out 
to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations .  The technical guidance on the sampling and 
testing of GMOs should facilitate a coordinated approach for those inspections and assist the pr oper 
functioning of the market in this area .  It had to be kept in mind that the EU traceability rules for 
GMOs and derived products were primarily based on a "paper trail ";  testing was therefore expected 
to be used only to monitor compliance or if a susp icion of non -compliance existed.  
C. OTHER MATTERS  
76. The representative of the United States  drew the attention of the Committee to the 
United States ' intent ion to make a notification of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA)  with the 
European  Commission on mari ne equipment , signed on 27 February  2004  and that entered into force 
on 1 July 2004 .7  The European Communities and the United States maintained similar requirements 
for marine equipment based on conventions of the International Maritime Organization .  The MRA's 
product scope was based on a detailed product -by-product determination of the equivalency of US 
and EU marine equipment requirements and only products facing identical requirements in each 
market were included in the initial product scope .  Therefor e, if a party changed its requirements , the 
MRA obligations with respect to those products would be  suspended .  The MRA was already 
available on the USTR's website.  
IV. TRIENNIAL REVIEW  
A. ISSUES ARISING FROM THE THIRD TRIENNIAL REVIEW  
1. Good Regulatory Practice  
77. The Chairman  recalled tha t at the Third Triennial Review  Members agreed on three 
recommendations aimed at furthering the Committee's work on good regulatory practice (contained in 
paragraph 14).8  These were all related to the exchange of experiences.  The first recommendation 
mandated the identification of elements of good regulatory practice at the domestic level.  Second, 
Members agreed to focus on the choice of policy instruments, such as mandatory versus voluntary 
measures, and the use of regulatory imp act assessments to facilitate good regulatory practice.  Finally, 
it had been agreed to initiate a process of sharing experiences on equivalency, particularly with regard 
to how the concept was implemented in practice.  The Chairman also reminded the Commi ttee that 
the outgoing chair man had invited both Member country delegations and Observers to come up with 
submissions for this meeting in order to  help move the Committee's discussions forward in this 
regard.   He was therefore pleased to note that the dele gation of Colombia had submitted a paper 
contained in G/TBT/W/239 , dated 24 June 2004 , which reflected Colombia's experience in the area of 
good regulatory practice .  Also, the delegation of Chile had provided a room document which 
pertained to the 6th workshop of the APEC and OECD on cooperative initiative on regulatory reforms.  
78. The representative of Colombia  explained that the submitted document served a dual purpose :  
first, to share information on the regulatory process in Colombia and the Andean commun ity;  and 
second, to put forward a few suggestions for the considerations of the Committee .  In implementing 
the TBT Agreement , Colombia paid particular attention to regulatory practices .  As a member State of 
the Andean Community , it also applied Decision  562, in force since July 2003, which contained 
 
7 The MRA was subsequently notified in document G/TBT/10.7/N/46, dated 21 July 2004.  
8 Unless otherwise stated, paragraph numbers refer to those of the Third  Triennial Review (G/TBT/13).   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 17 
 
 
mandatory directives for the drafting, adoption and application of tech nical regulations in the 
Andean  Community and vis -à-vis third countries .  This decision had become a tool for trade 
facilitation  because:   it promoted transparency by promoting a harmonized structure of technical 
regulations, both at the national and the Andean Community level ;  it provided information on 
registration, on conformity assessment procedures, and on the regulatory authorities;   it provided for a 
notification and counter -notification procedure , which had enabled  the build ing of  "mutual 
confidence " between the national regulators ;  and it created an "Andean Centre for Information on 
Standards, Technical Regulations, and Conformity  Assessment Procedures " grouping together the five 
national enquiry points and the Community enquiry point, located in the General Secretariat of the 
Andean Community .  The interconnection of these enquiry points would be the basis for the "export 
alert" s ystem, which would enable trading agents to become aware of the mandatory technical 
requirements for the product exported to another Andean country , thereby helping to improve the 
utilization of the expanded market.  
79. The representative of Colombia underline d that the national regulatory bodies had become 
increasingly aware of the importance  of cooperating with  business to comply with the 
TBT  Committee's recommendation  on the minimum period of six  months  between  the publication of 
a draft technical regulation  and its entry into force .  The implementation of Decision 562 had also 
served to enhance transparency by the publication of a number of draft regulations, standards and 
conformity assessment procedures on the web pages of the national regulatory bodies .  It had also led 
to an improved coordination between the regulatory bodies and the highest authority, the Ministry of 
Trade, Industry and Tourism, in defining national quality and standardization policies.   
80. Colombia was currently drafting a guide to good re gulatory practices so that the different 
regulatory bodies could soon be provided with mandatory guidelines .  This guide:  identified the 
national technical and international standards related to the subject -matter before the regulatory 
proposal ;  facilita ted conformity assessment procedures, taking into account the least costly and least 
trade restrictive alternatives to achieve  the objective pursued ;  enabled the private sector to provide 
regulatory alternatives at the first stage of the proposal in order  to secure its essential input;   designed 
a "systematic follow -up" mechanism to monitor the implementation of technical regulations;  and 
determined the capacity of countries'  laboratories and certifying entities .  Furthermore, as foreseen in 
the S econd an d Third Triennial Review, Colombia, together with the other Andean countries  and with 
the help of the Secretary General of the Andean Community and with the technical cooperation 
received from the European Communit ies, had launched a process o f standardiza tion at the 
Andean  Community level to achieve  equivalence of some voluntary standards , which would serve as 
a basis when initiating a technical regulation procedure in the procedure  in the Andean Community . 
81. Concerning these projects, Colombia r equested the  support of the TBT  Committee  to improve 
the process of technical regulations .  Colombia also called for the establishment of parameters to 
define when a standard should be considered as international according to Article 2.4 and  to ensure 
that such standa rds we re used in a process of national regulation .  The majority of the international 
community needed to  be able to participate effectively in the process of drafting an international 
standard , which went beyond the assumption that all standards drafted by a single international body 
automatically represented international standards for the  purposes of Article  2.4.  There was a need to 
facilitate the access of developing countries to the process of drafting international standards in 
international org aniza tions through, for example:   (i) the creation of regional chapters;   (ii) the use of 
teleconferencing;  (iii) a significant reduct ion in financial contributions;   (iv) the promotion of 
internships with the participation of  the academic sector;   and (v)  the creation of mechanisms which 
would enable countries to be informed of the specific reasons underlying the results of a particular 
process with the possibility of the establishment of forums of experts .  Regulators of developing 
countries should be able to  use international standards in a flexible and economical manner, without 
this necessarily implying high levels of copyright protection, which we re implicit in such standards .  
The exchange of documents and  opinions of international standardization organiz ations should be 
facilitated , so as to raise awareness of  the background and the analysis of a standard with a view to G/TBT/M/33  
Page 18 
 
 
enabling developing countries to adopt a more economical and flexible standardization process .  
Finally, the Committee should design a pr ocedure to facilitate the equivale nce of regulations between 
WTO M ember s, or to establish a procedure that shed light on the shortcomings in the regulatory 
process , and make it possible to begin working towards mutual adjustment.  
82. The representative of Mexi co believed that  the Colombian document pr ovided a good 
starting -point for a debate  about good regulatory practice  and noted that  a similar contribution  would 
be provided  by Mexico .  The Mexican system of good regulatory practice, which was contained in th e 
Federal Law on Standardization and in the regulations thereto, was based on seven principles, which 
were key elements of good regulatory practice .  The first principle was transparency, which related to 
the possibility that any party concerned was able t o make comments and intervene in the preparation 
of any regulation or standard .  Also, t he Mexican system was consensus based, so that any technical 
regulation had to  be the result  of consensus of the various sectors involved and interested in the scope 
of the regulation .  Another element was the notion of representativity in the preparation of technical 
regulations, which meant that at any point in the procedure, there should be consultations with all 
sectors interested ;  and it should be those instances w ho decide what should be included in any 
regulation of a technical nature .  This way, the preparation of a technical regulation became a shared 
responsibility with the government's word as additional weight in the preparation process, but with the 
particip ation of all interested sectors .  Other  elements were the reviewability of any technical 
regulation or component s thereof and the notion of regulatory improvement, which ensured that 
measures were accompanied by statements of the regulatory impact to justi fy the technical, 
economical and legal feasibility .  Another important component was the principle of non -duplication, 
implying a tendency towards centralization to facilitate the preparation and implementation of 
regulation, and the uniformity of the proc edure .  This entailed  using the same approach by the 
government each time it prepared a technical regulation .  While not suggesting that the Committee 
should adopt guides on good regulatory practice, the representative of Mexico  felt that the principles 
mentioned could add to a useful discussion on the direction the Committee should take in this area.  
83. Concerning the requests of Colombia , contained  in paragraph 12 of its paper, on the 
establishment of parameters for defining when a standard should be conside red international in terms 
of Article  2.4, Mexico understood that as a result of the Second Triennial Review, th e Committee had 
adopted a  Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and 
Recommendations with relation to Art icles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/9, 
Annex 4), which should be observed in the process of international standardization , and wondered  
why Colombia considered those principles insufficient .  Mexico also pointed out its interest in the 
idea of equivalence, which, however, required some further thought.  
84. The representative of Peru thanked Colombia for its document that stressed the importance of 
Decision 562 of the Commission of the Andean Community .  Peru shared with Colombia an 
integration pr oject, which was in a fairly advanced form .  He saw the document as a good 
starting-point to open discussion on the issue of good regulatory practice and announced that Peru  
would also like  to share its experience in the field of good regulatory practice .   
85. The representative of Colombia  thanked Mexico and Peru for their statements and indicated  
that Colombia would a dd to Mexico's proposals later .  With regard to Mexico's concerns, Colombia 
currently applied the Committee Decision referred to by Mexico  (Ann ex 4 of G/TBT/9) , which was 
considered  to be an important guide as to when to use a standard as an international reference , but in 
light of the emergence of new standardizing bodies , it was felt that Committee Decision Annex 4  
concentrated on international  bodies  producing standard s rather than on the actual procedure of setting 
a standard .  This made it more complicate d to decide whether or not a regulation by one country was 
equivalent to that of another country for the purpose of trade facilitation .  The Colombian proposal , 
therefore , suggested not go ing further into the question of whether  the body setting the standard wa s 
international, meeting the requirements of Annex 4 of G/TBT/9 , but instead look ing at the  G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 19 
 
 
participation in the standardizing process,  which might facilitate  the application by developing 
countries of the most relevant standards.  
86. The representative of Chile  informed the Committee of the 6th Seminar on Regulatory 
Reform, which was part of a joint initiative of APEC and the OECD, held on 2 4-25 May 2004 in 
Chile .  The joint initiative was designed to provide a forum for discussion on issues concerning good 
regulatory practice, so that all countries could improve their regulatory systems in areas such as 
regulatory policies, competition polic ies and open market policies .  Participants in this seminar were 
representatives of the OECD.  A specific part of the conference was intended to work on a checklist as 
a tool for the implementation of APEC and OECD principles in good regulatory and competi tion 
policy.   The overall topic of the seminar was the improvement of market openness through regulatory 
reforms and the remov al of  distortions which occur at frontiers as well as through regulations and 
practices in domestic markets .  Points discussed in connection with trade policy were transparency, 
decision -making processes, non -discrimination, unnecessary obstacles to trade, the use of 
internationally harmonized measures, the recognition of equivalence of other countries' regulatory 
measures and the ap plication of competition principles .  In addition to the proposed checklist, the 
Conference intended  to further the ideas developed in a seminar held in Vancouver in October 2003 
and a seminar held in Paris in December 2003 .  The underlying idea was to sha re experiences , and to 
improve regulations in all APEC countries .  Chile was preparing a detailed working document  that 
would incorporate the said checklist .  Finally , the representative of Chile noted two e vents to be held  
at the end of September in Santi ago within the context of APEC :  first, the T hird Conference on Good 
Regulatory Practice and second, the Fifth  Conference on Standards and Conformity Assessment under 
the aegis of the APEC sub-committee on standards and conformity.  
87. The representative of Japan thanked Chile for its introduction to APEC activities on good 
regulatory practice and announced his intention to introduce the activities of ASEM, the Asia -Europe 
Meeting, with regard to good regulatory practice .  ASEM had set  guideline s for best regul atory 
practices in April 2000, w hich took account of the fulfil ment of WTO obligations by ASEM partners .  
After setting these  guideline s, there had been a successful survey among ASEM members on the 
situation of regulatory practices .  The representative of  Japan  also mentioned  a seminar on best 
regulatory practices at the end of 2004  in Tokyo, Japan .   
88. The representative of New Zealand  stressed the importance of the questions raised by 
Colombia on the subject of equivalence as an element of good regulatory practice and indicated  that 
New Zealand would share its experiences , particularly in regard to how the concept of equivalency 
was implemented in New Zealand .  New Zealand's first submission on equivalence of standards 
highlighted the example of the Trans -Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA), which 
emerged out of the Closer Economic Relations Agreement between New Zealand and Australia .  This 
had provided a useful platform for the pursuit of equivalence, as it had allowed regulators to share 
experie nces and establish mutual confidence .  While it was not New Zealand's intention to detract 
from the formulation of international standards, it did not see any conflict between the use of 
equivalence and the development and recognition of international stan dards, as the former could be an 
important stepping -stone towards the latter .  Nor was equivalence necessarily perceived as being the 
same as harmonization of standards .  Making use of equivalence could remove unnecessary barriers to 
trade by achieving the  same regulatory outcome through different means .  Therefore, New Zealand 
continued to believe that an exchange of national experiences o n equivalence in action and o n what 
the concept entailed would  help M embers to better understand the circumstances in w hich such an 
approach was likely to work . New Zealand would think further about ways to inform the Committee 
about its relevant experience . 
89. The representative of Colombia  referr ed to the statement of Mexico regarding regulatory  
impact assessment .  She was of the view that this was one of the best elements of good regulatory 
practice .  She welcomed  further elaboration on what this concept consisted of.  G/TBT/M/33  
Page 20 
 
 
90. The representative of the European Communities  welcomed the presentations by Colombia 
and Chile , which  gave  the Committee food for thought .  He was interested to have more details on the 
mechanism to select the most appropriate conformity assessment procedure mentioned by Colombia .  
Also o f further interest were the issues raised with regard to international st andardization bodies, 
participation and IPR issues .  Finally, he was of the view that the issue of equivalency of regulations 
deserved further examination by the Committee .  With regard to the presentation by Chile, the 
European Communities remained intere sted in  follow -up in respect of the checklist.  
91. To conclude, the Chairman  thanked the delegations of Colombia and Chile for sharing their 
experiences on good regulatory practices, as well as for the work being done in the context of APEC 
and the OECD Cooper ative Initiative on Regulatory Reform .  He invited other Members to also share 
their experiences on various elements of good regulatory practice, bearing in mind paragraph 14 of 
the Third Triennial Review.  
2. Transparency Procedures  
92. The Chairman  recalled that  the Committee would be holding a Special Meeting on 
Information Exchange of persons responsible for information exchange, including persons responsible 
for Enquiry Points and notifications , on 2–3 November 2004, back -to-back with the next meeting of 
the T BT Committee .  As the event was included in the Technical Assistance and Training Plan for 
2004 , there would be funds available for the participation of capital -based officials from developing 
countries .  
93. The Secretariat  introduce d the draft programme.9  The issues to be discussed were divided 
into two parts:  one on notifications and the other on enquiry points.  The meeting would be set up in 
panel sessions and Members were invited to provide input on the programme, as well as ideas for the 
panel members on the various items.  
94. The representative of the United States  suggested , for the section prior to notifications , adding 
the use of electronic databases of public or private stakeholders to facilitate transparency, including 
discussion of newsletters, aler ts or web alerts, which was foreseen for the next section but might be of 
interest in the first section as well .  On the preparation and submission of notifications , she also 
suggested including  a discussion on the possibility of sharing translations and w hether this could be 
done electronically, which had been discussed in the past.  
95. The representative of Brazil  expressed his delegation's willingness to share their experience 
on the functioning of his country's  enquiry point at the Special Meeting . 
96. The repr esentative of China  expressed his delegation's willingness to share China's experience 
with regard to the functioning of national enquiry points at the Special M eeting and supported  the 
United States' proposal on the possibility of sharing translations ele ctronically.  
97. The representative of Mexico  emphasized that the session on the benefit ting from 
transparency measures wa s of the utmost importance and should be given emphasis .  He suggested 
that some Members ' representative s could talk ab out good practices in this area, including persons 
from the private sector .  Mexico was also willing  to share its experience with respect to its early 
warning system for exporters.  
98. The representative of Colombia  supported the United States' and Mexico's proposals .  
Colombia was very interested in learning about experiences in the private sector and how the 
information received was used in order to respond in a timely manner to the notifications made in 
other countries, which was the ultimate objective of the presentations on enquiry points.  
 
9 The draft programme which was circulated at the meeting has been issued as Job(04)/90.   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 21 
 
 
99. The representative of Chile  offered to make a contribution on experiences of coordination at 
the national level, drawing from its own  national TBT Commission.  
100. The representative of the European Communities  also supported the United States'  proposal to 
discuss the possibility of sharing translations of notified drafts  and informed other WTO M embers 
that the European Commission had opened a new web  site on the TBT notification procedures .10  The 
new application stored all the notification messa ges and all the available draft texts in their original 
language , plus any translations available .  A searchable database facilitated the consultation of these 
documents and site users wishing to follow notifications in their field of interest were offered  the 
possibility of subscribing  to a mailing list .  Following the recommendation under paragraph  26 of the 
Third Triennial Review to disseminate WTO Members' comments and responses by means of national 
web sites, all comments sent and received by the Europ ean Communities would be posted on the new 
web site;  a more detailed presentation would be given at the Special Meeting . 
101. On the matter  of sharing translations , the representative of Egypt  referred to the practice in 
the SPS Committee of issuing  supplement ary notifications informing delegates that official 
translations existed .  He suggested that the SPS Secretariat  brief Members on that matter .  Likewise, 
he asked  whether comments on notifications could not be shared the same way between Members, on 
a volu ntary basis, through the Committee .  He suggested that the Committee encouraged Members to 
do so.  
102. The representative of Malaysia  supported the proposal of the U nited States  to include the 
sharing of translations and indicated  Malaysia's willingness to shar e its experience  on transparency 
obligations under the Code of Good Practice.  
103. The representative of Canada  said that s ince the meeting would be  attended primarily by 
technical experts to whom the issue s of sharing of translations and comments were particul arly 
important, she wondered whether it would not be helpful for those who actually operate the enquiry 
points to explain the role of the enquiry point and the functioning from an overview perspective, as 
this meeting might result in the guideline s for tho se operators .  This overview of the functions of an 
enquiry point should comprise notifications , as the enquiry point's primary function , but also other 
activities .  There was a need for  operators to better understand the role that enquiry points  played in 
ensuring that their M ember country actually me t their obligations .  To follow that , with certainly a 
focus on notifications , there should be an explanation of the role of the enquiry point prior to a 
notification being made and its relationship with other  parties domestically , which included  the 
preparation and submission of notifications .  The use of electronic tools , where appropriate , should be 
considered under each of these points .  As the programme suggested , this should be followed by a 
section on th e processing and circulation of notifications, which was the next logical step, and then 
the whole issue of handling comments , which was clearly an important function of the enquiry point, 
from the perspective of making the notification, receiving the comm ents, distributing the comments 
domestically and also in forwarding comments from the stakeholders of one country to another who 
had made a notification .  She welcomed the addition of tran sparency obligations under the C ode of 
Good Practice .  Finally, she asked  whether Members were offering their full experience with respect 
to the operation of their enquiry points or just with respect to individual elements.  
104. With  regard to the suggestions by Canada , the Secretariat  understood that one of Canada's 
concerns was that several of the issues covered in the first day were also relevant to the functioning of 
an enquiry point .  However,  the programme had been designed to reflect that the notification 
authorities might not always be the same as the enquiry point s, and this could especially be the case in 
developing countries.   
 
10 http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tbt/.  G/TBT/M/33  
Page 22 
 
 
105. The Chairman  thanked Member s for their comments on the draft programme and suggested 
that they should contact the Secretariat with additional comments in order to fine -tune the programme 
and ma ke it as complete  as possible .  He also reminded Members to indicate names of participants to 
the Secretariat , who would soon be sending an invitation letter to all developing country Members .11  
Also, he invited Members to suggest names for the panellists of the various sessions and noted the 
offers from Members in terms of sharing experience on various elements of this meeting .   A revised 
programme would be made available in early October.  
3. Conformity Assessment  
106. The outgoing Chairman , Mr. Dorantes Sanchez,  reported on the Special Meeting dedicated to 
Conformity Assessment Procedures, held on 29  June 2004.12  He recalled that this Special Meeting 
had been held bearing in mind th e recommendations contained in p aragraph 40 of the Third Triennial 
Review  and the need to advance the  Work Program me in this area .  The objective of the meeting was 
to exchange information and experiences on conformity assessment procedures and practices  and he 
was of the view  that this had been achieved .  On the issue of Supplier's Dec laration of Conformity 
(SDoC) , presentations and experiences on its implementation were given by Brazil, Chinese Taipei, 
the European Communities, New Zealand and Australia .  In his view, this debate  was useful , as it 
provided concrete examples of how SDoC  was used as one alternative for conformity assessment, in 
certain sectors, and as it emphasized  the need for "balancing" the advantages and disadvantages of 
using SDoC .  It was pointed out during this debate that there might  be some scope for a clearer 
definition of the concept of SDoC .  He stressed  that those points should be considered in the 
upcoming workshop on SDoC, tentatively scheduled in March  2005.  
107. On the issue of accreditation, presentations were  given on relevant work at the international 
level from the IAF, ILAC and ISO/IEC CASCO .  The Committee's attention was drawn, inter alia , to 
a new ISO/IEC standard in the area of accreditation (ISO/IEC 17011), which had been approved by 
ISO Member Bodies and IEC National Committees (to be published before  the end of 2004 ).  As an 
example of accreditation work at a regional level, the European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA) 
was introduced .   
108. Following this debate, the Committee had heard useful in -depth presentations from Jordan 
and the European Communi ties on their approaches to conformity assessment .13  In addition, the 
Committee was briefed on the work of organizations relevant to conformity assessment, as 
demonstrated in the IEC's presentation on Systems for Conformity Testing and Certification of 
Electrical Equipment (IECEE) ;  presentations on legal metrology by both the OIML (International 
Organization of Legal Metrology) and the BIPM ( Bureau International des Poids et Mesure s);  and 
on the work of the OECD  in this field .  The presentations and discu ssion were  informative and 
substantive and a large number of facts and figures came out of that debate, which could help to 
clarify the universe of conformity .  The Secretariat would make a summary of that meeting so that 
those delegations, in particular d eveloping country delegations that had not been able to attend would 
also be able to benefit from it.  
109. The Chairman  thanked the outgoing Chairman for his report.  He noted  that at the informal 
meeting on 30 June 2004 the Committee had considered a draft pro gramme for the March 2005 
workshop on SDoC contained in Job(04)/70 and that several delegations had made comments on it or 
had proposed case studies . Any additional proposals or commen ts received before  20 September  2004 
would be reflected in a revised version of the programme  to be circulated in advance of the meeting in 
 
11 An invitation from the Chairman was sent to developing countries on 22 July 2004.  The de adline for 
submitting names is 3 September 2004.  
12 The report of this meeting will be circulated in G/TBT/M/33/Add.1.  
13 A document containing references to all relevant TBT  documents dealing with this subject 
since  1995 was issued as Job(04)/91.   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 23 
 
 
November .  Regarding the recommendation contained in p aragraph 40, fourth tiret of the  Third  
Triennial Review  whereby the Committee agreed that, as part of its work programme on conformity  
assessment, it would  hold a workshop on "different approaches to conformity assessment, including 
on the acceptance of conformity assessment results" , the Chairman considered that  there was a 
general sense among Members at the informal meeting on 30 June that it would be useful for the 
Committee to organize this second workshop in  the autumn of 2005 .  He proposed that the Committee 
agree to request for necessary funding to hold such a workshop with the participation of capital -based 
officials from developi ng countries in the second half of 2005 .  It would be include d in the TA Plan , 
which the Committee on Trade and Development would  adopt in the second half of 2004 .  It was so 
agreed . 
110. The representative of the International Organization for Standardization  (ISO) supported the 
TBT Committee's focus on this area and noted  that the ISO would be willing to assist, when asked, in 
terms of any presentations , particularly as the area of conformity assessment procedures was fraught 
with misunderstanding and sometime s technically very difficult to penetrate.  
4. Technical assistance  
111. The outgoing Chairman , Mr. Dorantes Sanchez,  reported on the informal consultations on 
technical assistance held on 30 June 2004.  He recalled that the topic of the Informal Consultations on 
the " Information Coordination Mechanism " (ICM) had been  the subject of  a recommendation 
contained in p aragraph 54 of the Third Triennial Review and that the discussion at the previous 
meeting in March 2004 had largely been based on his Communication of 17 M arch 2004 .  In order not 
to duplicate work done elsewhere , both in -house and in other organizations, as had been emphasized 
by several delegations, he had asked the Secretariat to report on other activities of relevance to this 
subject as a basis for furth er discussion.   He pointed out that at the informal consultations , 
Mr. Maarten Smeets, of the WTO Institute for Training and Technical Co -Operation , had provided  an 
overview of the Doha Development Agenda Trade Capacity Building Database (TCBDB), which had  
been established by the WTO jointly with the OECD in 2002 and was accessible on the Internet.14 He 
explained how this database provided information on trade -related technical assistance and capacity 
building activities .  Mr. Smeets also noted  that the peri od of coverage for the database at the moment 
was for the years 2001, 2002 and partially 2003, but was being  updated, even though only a few 
countries or agencies were able to report on future activities .  Although the present database grouped 
toget her SPS  and TBT activities in one single category, he emphasized that these two areas  were 
currently being separated , so that as from next autumn  it would be possible to conduct a search on 
TBT activities  only. 
112. Mr. Dorantes Sanchez also drew attention to the pres entation by Mr. Michael Roberts, of the 
Agriculture and Commodities Division , on work of relevance in the SPS area that covered the 
Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) , which was a joint initiative of the FAO, OIE, 
World Bank, WHO, and WTO .  This facility had arisen from the Doha Ministerial Conference  and 
had been launched in 2002 to assist developing countries enhance their capacity to meet international 
SPS standards, improving their human health, animal health and phytosanitary situation, an d thus 
gaining and maintaining market access .  The outgoing Chairman stressed  that the STDF wa s both a 
financing and a coordinating  mechanism .  One of the first projects undertaken under the STDF had 
been to establish a database on technical assistance act ivities in the SPS area, which was a "clone" of 
the existing WTO/OECD database but con tained additional information f rom other international 
organizations specific to SPS issues, and was sub -divided into SPS categories (such as plant health, 
animal health and food safety) .  The STDF had its own web  site15, and more information on this 
program me was available in document G/SPS/GEN/486, dated 21 April 2004.  
 
 14  http:/ /tcbdb.wto.org.  
 15 http://www.standardsfacility.org.  G/TBT/M/33  
Page 24 
 
 
113. Mr. Dorantes Sanchez reminded the Committee of the discussions held after those 
presentations and was of  the view  that Members needed more time to digest the information received 
on the OECD/WTO Database and the SPS STDF mechanism  in order to consider the relevance of this 
work to the Third Triennial Review mandate .  He recalled that Members stressed the nee d for 
simplicity, low cost and minimal duplication when considering any action to take .  While some 
delegations wanted the Committee to focus on existing databases to see what additional work could be 
undertaken to add value from a TBT perspective, for whi ch a first step could be  to identify categories 
that could be used as search tools in the TBT area , other delegations referred to previous proposals , 
which remained on the table .  He concluded by encouraging Members to submit further proposals on 
possible ways to advance work in this area.  
114. The representative of China  appreciated the discussions held on how to implement the 
technical assistance issues mandated by the Doha Ministerial Declaration and agreed that they were 
fruitful .  However, in China's view, the availability of funds was more important than the Internet 
facilities discussed, as any substantial technical assistance would be restricted if there were no funds 
available .  China, like most other developing  countries , had identified its technical as sistance demands 
two years ago by responding  to the survey questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat  (G/TBT/W/178) .  
The representative of China voiced her concern about the fact that while technical assistance within 
the WTO was understood to be demand dr iven, the Committee was still discussing how these 
demands could be managed .  She wondered whether this was because demands were not sufficient to 
drive any specific action or too much for any action to be taken .  She also pointed out that she had 
been imp ressed by the fact that the SPS STDF facility had fundings of US$ 300.000 per year, three 
years in total and a 100.000 CHF contribution from the Doha  Development Global Trust Fund and 
suggested that the TBT Committee should also attract funding .  As to the  recommendation of the 
Third Triennial Review regarding the voluntary update of responses to the survey questionnaire, she 
further suggested that Members updated their responses regularly, as China would do shortly.  
115. The representative of the European Commu nities  recalled  the suggestion made at the 30 June 
meeting by  the United States on the categorization of issues, so that the search function could be made 
more effective.  
116. The representative of Egypt  supported the statement by the Chinese delegation , especi ally on 
the problems of delivering efficient technical assistance .  Regarding China's concern with regard to 
the management of the demands, his view  was that management was the recipe for success and that 
the Committee should establish a management approac h, so that technical assistance program mes 
could be crafted to truly assist developing countries.  
117. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to p aragraph 54 of the Third Triennial Review, 
according to which the survey questionnaire could be a dynamic tool  to maintain info rmation on 
developing country Me mbers' need s, and encouraged Members , on a voluntary basis , to update their 
response to that survey .  He thanked the outgoing  Chairman for his report and invited Members to 
reflect further on information rec eived on the WTO/OECD database as well as SPS/STDF and als o 
various observations made by M embers at the informal and  regular  Committee meeting s.  He 
remained at the disposal of Members to receive and discuss any new ideas to move this process 
forward , and he intended to be in contact  with delegations to see how there could be further progress 
on this issue , bearing in mind the recommendations contained in the Third Triennial Review.  
5. Other Elements  
118. No other elements arising from the Third Triennial Review we re raised.   G/TBT/M/33  
 Page 25 
 
 
B. PREPARATION OF THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW  
119. The Chairman  recalled that it had been agreed that the Chairperson would develop a 
procedural "road-map" for the Committee's consideration before the end of 2004 .  He indicated  that 
he would like to sha re his ideas with the Committee at the next meeting . 
V. TECHNICAL CO -OPERATION  
120. The Chairman  asked the Secretariat to report on its recent technical assistance activities.  
121. The Secretariat  informed the Committee that since the last meeting  in March 2004, it had  held 
two regional and two national workshops , and participated in the Third WTO Regional Trade Policy 
Course  in Nairobi .  The first regional workshop was  held on 20 -22 April  2004  in Lusaka, Zambia and 
was aimed at participants from East Africa and other C OMESA Members .16  Each country was 
invited to nominate  three capital -based officials from:  (i) the government agency responsible for  the 
implementation of the WTO/ TBT A greement;  (ii) the national TBT  Enquiry Point;   and (iii) the 
national standardizing bo dy.  The second regional workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam, in May 2004 
was aimed at a sub -set of countries at the same level of development in the Asia and Pa cific Region .  
In May 2004, t he Secretariat also held  a national seminar for Vietnam on TBT issues , together with 
the UNIDO National Workshop .  A second national workshop was held in Ukraine on 14 June 2004 , 
organized by the State Committee of Ukraine for Technical Regulations and Consumer Policy .   
122. The Secretariat informed the Committee that three regional workshops  would be  held during 
the summer .  The first one, organized jointly with the IDB/INTAL, would take place in Panama City, 
Panama , on 20–22 July 2004 and would address a group of 19 Latin American countries  to emphasi ze 
the exchange of informat ion and issues related to accreditation and legal metrology.   A second 
regional workshop , covering mainly Western African countries , would be held in Dakar, Senegal , on 
17–18 August 2004 , with officials from e nquiry points and those responsible for the foc al points .  
There would be some 30 African countries present at this event, which would also be followed by a  
back -to-back national workshop.   The last regional workshop for 2004 would be held  in Istanbul, 
Turkey, on 22 -23 September , covering Central and E astern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 
where officials responsible for the implementation of the Agreement, representatives of the national 
standardizing  bodies and officials from the e nquiry points, coming from some 20 countries, would be 
invited.  This workshop would be organized in cooperation with the Black Sea Co -operation Council 
and followed by a national seminar on both TBT and SPS Agreements in Ankara on 27 -29 September, 
at the request of the Turkish Government.  
123. The representative of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development  (UNCTAD ) 
informed the Committee of a joint UNCTAD/ INMETRO (National Institute of Metrology, 
Standardization and Industrial Quality, Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade of 
Brazil) workshop held  as a pre -UNCTAD XI workshop in Rio de Janeiro on 7 -8 June 2004, which 
examined , inter alia , the modalities of a Consultative Task Force on Environmental Requirements and 
Market Access for Developing Countries .17  The Consultative Task Force would  provide a  framework 
for dialogue and networking on relevant issues at the interface of environmental requirements and 
market access for developing countries .  UNCTAD was planning to hold the first substantive meeting 
of the Consultative Task Force back -to-back with  the next meeting of the TBT Committee on 5 -6 
November 2004 in Geneva, with the objective of developing the work pro gram me of the Task Force 
for 2005 . 
 
16 The programme for the workshop was posted on the TBT TA website.  
17 The full text of the UNCTAD statement has been circulated as G/TBT/GEN/9, dated 1  July 2004.  G/TBT/M/33  
Page 26 
 
 
VI. OBSERVERS  
A. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS  
124. On the issue of requests for observer status, the Chairman  drew th e Committee's attention to 
document G/TBT/GEN/2 , which set out the situation with r espect to observership by 
intergovernmental organizations in the Committee.  There were still four organizations whose 
requests for observer status were pending:  the Office  International de la Vigne et du Vin  (OIV), the 
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures  (BIPM), the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting 
(GOIC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  He pointed out that the CBD had , in a 
recent letter , renewed its request for observer status in the TBT Committee .  However, t he Chairman 
noted that, in his understanding, differences remained among Members at a horizontal level and 
further consultations were still needed on the issue of observership.  For this reason , he proposed that 
the Committee revert to the requests at the next meeting.   It was so agreed . 
B. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS18 
125. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to a recently circulated document from the 
Codex Alimentarius  Commission , containe d in G/TBT/GEN/8, dated 25 June 2004, setting out issues 
of interest arising from Codex work.  
126. The representative of the OIML  highlighted four areas of interest to the Committee 
concerning the OIML's work involving developing countries .19  He indicated  that, subject to a 
decision by a conference to be held in October 2004, the existing OIML Development Council would 
be replaced by a permanent working group on developing countries set up as a small advisory group, 
which would hopefully enable the OIML to conce ntrate on practical action in favour of developing 
countries .  Also, he pointed to the OIML forum to be held in October 2004 in conjunction with that 
conference to highlight the importance of metrology as a trade facilitator .20  Furthermore, to help 
develop ing countries with practical, day to day metrology issues, the OIML had decided to begin 
producing a series of reports by experts under contract with the OIML, not representing its views but 
rather an international consensus on the issue to enable practica l advice to be produced  more quickly .  
Finally, again subject to a decision by a Conference in October 2004 approving the budget, the OIML 
intended to provide its publications free of charge as from next year, except where these are published 
jointly with other organizations because of copyright issues .  This was intended to help developing 
countries to have access to international standardization documents and to promote the use of 
international recommendations produced by the OIML, when member countries o r even non -member 
countries were producing national or regional legislation concerning legal metrology.  
VII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
127. The Chairman  confirmed that the next regular meeting of the Committee would take place 
on 4 November 2004  and would be preceded by a one-an-a-half day Special Meeting on Information 
Exchange , on 2-3 November 2004 .  If there was a  need to hold  an informal meeting, this would take 
place on the afternoon of 3 November .  He indicated  that the Secretariat had distributed a list of 
tentativ e dates for TBT meetings in 2005 (G/TBT/GEN/11, dated 8 July 2004) and suggested that 
Members take note of these dates ;  they  would be subject to confirmation prior to each meeting.  
_________  
 
18 While the Secretariat of the Codex Alim entarius Commission did not take make a  statement at the 
meeting, information on relevant activities had been made available in G/TBT/GEN/6.  
19 The full text of the OIML statement has been circulated se parately as G/TBT/GEN/10, 
dated  2 July 2004.  
20 Further information regarding this forum could be found on the OIML's web  site at www.oiml.org.