RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/M/17
12 November 1999
(99-4881)
Committee on Technical Barrier to Trade
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 1 OCTOBER 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Mohan KUMAR (India)
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade held its Eighteenth meeting on
1 October 1999.
2. The following agenda, contained in WTO/AIR/1165 was adopted:
Page
I. Requests for Observer Status in the Committee by the Office International
de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) and the International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) 2
II. Report (1999) of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade 2
III. Statements on Implementation and Administration of the Agreement 2IV. Programme of Work Arising from the First Triennial Review of the Operation
and Implementation of the TBT Agreement under Article 15.4 7
A. Implementation and Administration of the Agreement by Members
under Article 15.2 7
B. Preparation, Adoption and Application of Technical Regulations 8
C. International Standards, Guides and Recommendations 8
D. Conformity Assessment Procedures 15E. Technical Assistance under Article 11 18
F. Special and Differential Treatment under Article 12 18
G. Other Elements 18
V. Other Business 18G/TBT/M/17
Page 2
I. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV) AND THE INTERNATIONAL
LABORATORY ACCREDITATION COOPERATION (ILAC)
3. The Chairman indicated that more time was needed for informal consultations on the requests
for observer status by the OIV and ILAC.
4. The Committee agreed to return to the requests at its next meeting.
II. REPORT (1999) OF THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE
5. The Committee agreed to adopt the Report (1999) of the Committee on Technical Barriers to
Trade as contained in document G/TBT/SPEC/13.
III. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
6. The representative of the Canada informed the Committee that the Standards Council of
Canada had notified its acceptance of the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and
Application of Standards (Annex 3 of the Agreement).  This notification included the acceptance of
the Code for four standards development organizations in Canada (Bureau de Normalisation du
Quebec, Canadian General Standards Board, Canadian Standards Association International and
Underwriters Laboratories of Canada).
7. The representative of India informed the Committee that a notification on the implementation
and administration of the Agreement by his coun try (under Article 15.2) would soon be made.
8. The representative of New Zealand informed the Committee that the Agreement on Mutual
Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment between New Zealand and the European
Communities had just been notified.
9. The representative of Australia expressed concern about various proposals being developed in
Europe to restrict or ban the use of certain heavy metals, particularly Denmark's proposal to ban lead
and the European Commission's proposed Directives on Cadmium Batteries and on Waste from
Electrical and Electronic Equipment.  While she r ecognized the need for environmental controls for
hazardous materials, the proposals might be more trade restrictive than necessary.  Appropriate
scientific risk assessments, including an impact as sessment on switching to alternative materials, had
not been undertaken.  She added that manufacturing standards might be created that run counter to the
objective of greater harmonization of standards at the international level.  She sought further
clarification on the rationale of the proposed Directives and their relationship to the European
Communities' health and environmental objectives, so that their consistency with WTO obligations
could be assessed.
10. She also raised concerns on a proposal by Belgium to introduce a Decree requiring
manufacturers to prove that products manufactured as  single use devices could not be reprocessed or
reused.  She believed that the proposal would place an onerous burden on industry and would not
comply with the essential requirements of the European Directives (European Commission
NBM/107/99 & Council Directiv e 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993).
11. The representative of the United States associ ated herself with the Australian intervention.
She indicated that since the last Committee meeting the European Commission's DG XI had
circulated another proposal on the Directive to reduce waste and the environmental impact of
discarded electrical and electronic equipment, currently being discussed in inter-service consultations.
She noted that the new draft still contained provisions which might be inconsistent with the
Commission's obligations under WTO rules and might significantly and unnecessarily affect trade
from the US.  She estimated the potential impact on US products from this Directive to be over$40 billion.  Concerns expressed earlier had not been taken into account in the previous version.  SheG/TBT/M/17
Page 3
raised similar doubts as to the new draft and reiterated her request to consider alternatives to meet the
environmental objectives and to justify the Directive currently under consideration.
12. The representative of Japan echoed the concerns of Australia and the US about the European
Regulation on waste from electrical and electronic equipment.  While sharing the objective of waste
reduction, he felt that a restriction on components, especially heavy metals, created an unnecessaryobstacle to trade, excessive to what was necessary to attain the objective.
13. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with the comments made by Australia,
the US and Japan, recalling his delegation's intervention at the last Committee meeting concerning the
EU Directives on waste from electrical and electronic products and nickel-cadmium batteries.  In this
respect, he voiced his continuing concerns with regard to both trade in manufactured goods and trade
in metals and minerals.
14. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the proposed EC Directive on
waste of electrical and electronic equipment had been made by one authority of the Commission and
was currently under discussion in inter-service consultations.  At this stage, it could not be considered
as a formal proposal by the Commission.  He took no te of the concerns raised regarding the issue of
cadmium batteries, the ban of lead proposed by Denmark and the Belgian proposal on single use
medical devices.
15. The representative of the United States drew  attention to document G/TBT/W/119 concerning
EC Regulation 881/98 ("Traditional Terms"), and raised the concern that upon full implementation, it
would restrict the use of commonl y-used wine labelling terms describing colour, processing methods
and other characteristics of wine.  Pursuant to EC Regulation 881/98 (adopted April 1998, effective
1 October 1999), wines with labels or packaging containing any of the labelling terms which theEC defined as "traditional terms", would be deni ed entry into the EC unless originating from a
country with which the Commission had a bilateral (or multilateral) agreement.  Despite ongoing
bilateral consultations with the European Commissi on, she remained concerned that labelling terms
targeted by the Directive were simply descriptive.  She referred to adjectives that had long been used
in association with wine making throughout the world and were not linked to any specific product orgeographical area, such as "vintage", "superior", "res erve" and "extra".  She held that these adjectives
were used by winemakers world-wide to convey general consumer information about their wine and
did not function as indicia of source or quality for any particular type of wine.  The EU, however,
treated them as proprietary property, as if they were a bona fide geographical indication.
16. Although Regulation 881/98 had been enacted to prevent deceptive practice, she deemed it
unlikely that the use of these terms by multiple parties would create consumer confusion.  She argued
that terms such as "amber" and "gold" were commonly used to identify the colour of wines, that "aged
five years" was a common way of identifying how long the wine or liqueur had been aged and that
"vintage" and "reserve" were common terms to identify other attributes of wines or liqueurs.
Conversely, the EC had suggested that consumers w ould not know the true origin and/or composition
of the wine if, for example, the term "reserve" was used on any wine other than the "Mavrodafni
Patron" from Greece.  She called the purpose of the regulation into question, wondering whetherEuropean consumers purchasing California wine labelled as "vintage" would - in the absence of this
Regulation - be deceived into believing that they were buying a Spanish or Portuguese wine.  Even if
this was the case, she contended that there were less trade-restrictive alternatives.
17. She was concerned about the precedent that the regulation could create for other agricultural
products such as cheese.  She complained that the Regulation had not been notified in draft form andthat no opportunity had been given to interested Members to provide comments before adopting the
final Regulation.  She requested further clarification and justification for the Regulation as foreseen
under Article 2.5.  She requested information on whether a continued delay in implementation was
planned for consultations with interested parties and the development of a WTO-consistent approach.
She also recalled the obligation to notify bilateral agreements under Article 10.7 of theTBT Agreement, and incited that information be given on whether any agreements had beenG/TBT/M/17
Page 4
concluded by the European Commission in anticipation of the Regulation's enforcement and, if so,
when notification could be expected.
18. The representative of New Zealand shared some of the concerns relating to wine products
flared by the US on EC Regulation 881/98 ("Traditional Terms").  She also feared a precedent effect
for other products in which Members took a significant trade interest.  She was puzzled by the
EC's claim that proprietary rights over what she considered generic terms, being in common usagearound the world, were necessary to fulfill the Regulation's stated objective of preventing deceptive
practices.  She argued that, most likely, there were less trade-restricted means to fulfill this objective.
She showed empathy towards specifying conditions for the use of the relevant terms by third
countries, while criticizing that the Regulation used "traditional terms" and not an internationally
recognized intellectual property right, and that it put forward generic terms as "traditional terms".  She
felt that these conditions would be difficult to meet unless a third country had negotiated a bilateral
agreement with the EU.  She requested justificat ion for the Regulation under Article 2.5 of the
TBT Agreement and an update with regard to the implementation of the Regulation.
19. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with the comments made by the US on
"traditional terms", as defined in the EC Regulation.
20. The representative of Mexico expressed his delegation's interest in the issue of "Traditional
Terms", and requested the EC to provide further information as well as a copy of the Regulation.  He
proposed formal or informal follow-ups in the Committee.
21. The representative of Uruguay found the objective of protecting traditional terms followed by
the EC to be legitimate, since it was a way of protecting the denomination of origin.  He affirmed his
country's support for any measures of the EC taken in an attempt to protect these denominations of
origin.  However, he considered the regulation, particularly its annex, to be too far-reaching.  Annex 1gave details on traditional terms (such as "superior" or "reserve") that could easily be incorporated in
the labelling, but did not in themselves constitute a variety that could be identified with any particular
region of Europe.  In many cases, the terms acted as a verification of the same particular quality of
wine produced in other parts of the world.  He contended that Article 3 of the Regulation would
impose an EC standard and procedure onto exports to the EC and should therefore be notifiedaccording to the Agreement.  He requested a detailed  justification for this measure and information as
to whether the EC planned to notify this Regulation to the Committee.
22. The representative of Argentina flagged his concern regarding the EC Regulation for the
reasons already given by the previous speakers.  He felt particularly concerned about extending
protection to terms largely used in the wine industry throughout the world and not related to any
particular geographical area.  He raised concern also about a possible expansion of the Regulation to
cover other products.  He requested explanation on the objective of the EC Regulation.
23. The representative of Chile associated his delegation with the interest stated by several
Members in a justification of the EC Regulation and in further clarification concerning the time of its
application.  He requested the EC to comment on the seeming confusion or exaggeration regarding
geographical indications that could be supposed to be included in the labelling.
24. The representative of Australia informed the Committee that her delegation had, in
consultation with the European Commission, sought to clarify the scope and nature of the protection
envisaged by the EC in providing the list of te rms in EC regulation 881/98.  She valued the earlier
decision by the Commission to defer the application of that Regulation when these matters were
clarified.  While the reason given by the European Commission for this Regulation was the prevention
of consumer deception, she observed that this objective was effectively met in many jurisdictionsthrough general consumer protection laws without any evidence of consumer deception in relation to
these terms.  She encouraged a discussion in the Committee on how to protect consumers' interests in
relation to such terms in the least trade restrictiv e manner.  She considered the US intervention as a
useful start to this discussion.G/TBT/M/17
Page 5
25. The representative of the European Communities replied that EC Regulation 881/98 and other
Traditional Expressions Legislation sought to pr otect traditional expressions which had, through
association over a long period of time, acquired a particular connotation with certain wines.  The
purpose was to avoid misleading the consumer and unfa ir competition.  The rationale was that certain
producers had, through their work and investment, built up a quality association with certain wordsused in the marketing and description of wines.  He felt that, as with intellectual property, the value
which these producers had developed should not be exploited by other producers who would deceive
consumers by passing off their products as having qualities which they did not have.
26. He clarified that the legislation under discussion would not protect most of the words cited by
the US, such as "5 years of age", "amber" or "gold" in the English language.  "Vintage" and "reserve"
would only be protected in relation to a particular category of wines.  He also stressed that the
legislation would provide national treatment in that it allowed third countries to use the terms onsimilar conditions as applied to EC Member States.
27. He informed Members that the European Commission had proposed to postpone application
of the regulation to August 2000, in order to bring all wine legislation in line with the new
EC Common Market Organization for wines which w ould enter into force on that day.  Thus the
measure would not be applied for the time being.  He pointed out that the US, upon repeated request,had proven unable to provide a single example of a wine for which the Traditional Expressions were
used.  He considered this a clear indication that the Traditional Expressions were highly specific,
associated with particular production processes and, thus, worthy of protection.  He emphasized that
the legislation, if applied, would have no significant trade impact.
28. He reconfirmed that the aim of the Traditional Expressions legislation was to avoid
misleading consumers.  He noted in this regard that the US and other Members had extensive
legislation in place to protect consumer interests.  In the case of the US, he considered this legislation
to consist of opaque common laws, rules and practices.  He mentioned the wine sector, in which the
US operated a complex and costly system of label registration - State by State - with the aim of,
inter alia , checking that consumers were not misled.
29. He concluded that the proposed postponement of the legislation's application should close the
issue for the time being.  He explained that the EC had not notified the legislation for not being aware
of any significant trade impacts, as set out in the TBT Agreement.  Regarding any agreements or
discussions on the subject, he did not see the necessity to notify for the same reasons.  He expressed
his confidence that the legislation was fully WTO-compatible.  He contended that there was a good
case for a transparent application of consumer protection in relation to labelling and traditional
expressions at the international level and he would therefore welcome multilateral discussions on thetopic.  He invited Members to reflect on a suitable forum for such discussions.
30. The representative of Canada reiterated his concerns over the number of countries opting to
impose broad mandatory labelling policies for foods derived from biotechnology which appear to go
beyond a scientifically based food safety objective.  Concerning the recent announcement by Japan of
a proposed regulatory scheme, he appreciated the extended comment period to provide time forconsultations with interested Members.  He drew attention to what he considered a less trade
restrictive approach in providing information to consumers.  On 17 September, the Government of
Canada had announced a project to develop a voluntary labelling standard for foods derived from
biotechnology.  This project was led by the Ca nadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the
Canadian General Standards Board.  He affirmed that the Government of Canada believed in the rightof consumers to have access to information relating to biotechnology and food.  He explained that in
Canada, labelling requirements were mandatory for all foods, including those derived from
biotechnology, when nutritional changes were made to the product, or to alert consumers of possible
health concerns such as the presence of food alle rgens.  The voluntary labelling standard currently
under development with the participation from consumer groups, food companies, producers, interestgroups and the government was intended to provide additional information to consumers.  He offered
to provide more information to interested Members.G/TBT/M/17
Page 6
31. The representative of New Zealand recalled notifications G/TBT/Notif.99.244 (made by her
delegation on 19 May 1999), G/TBT/Notif.99.134 and G/TBT/Notif.99.275 (by Australia on
24 March and 14 June 1999).  The notifications informed the Committee that in December 1998 a
decision had been taken by New Zealand and the Australian States, Territories and Commonwealth to
consider extending the labelling requirements under the existing joint Australian/New Zealand
standard (Standard A18 of the Australian Food St andards Code) to all products produced using gene
technology.  They also advised that genetically modified (GM) foods would be allowed to remain on
the Australian market after 13 May 1999 (when the Standard entered into force).  Details were also
provided of current applications made to the Australia/New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) for
approval of GM foods for sale.  In August 1999, the December 1998 Decision had been re-confirmed
and a draft standard was currently being formulated by the ANZFA to give effect to this Decision.
She announced that the amended Standard would be notified to the Committee on its completion.  She
recalled that at the previous meeting of the Committee, Canada had raised various issues in relation tonotification G/TBT/Notif.99.244.  Mindful that some details of the Standard had not yet been
finalized, she intended to give some preliminary comments and promised further clarification upon
completion of the amended Standard.
32. She explained that on 3 August 1999, the Australia/New Zealand Food Standards Council
(ANZFSC), had re-affirmed that all GM food produc ts sold in Australia and New Zealand should be
labelled in order to provide consumers with information on those foods.  The Council had also
decided that all GM food products continued to be subject to pre-market safety assessments to
determine the safety for human consumption.  The Council had asked the ANZFA to address a
number of issues relating to the Decision and to prepare appropriate amendments to the existing
Standard covering food produced using gene technol ogy to give effect to the labelling decision.  An
amended Standard would be considered by the Council at the end of October 1999.
33. New Zealand and Australia intended that any amended Standard be consistent with all of their
international trade obligations.  If an amended Standard was agreed, it would be notified to the WTO
prior to its adoption.  She also assured that she had taken note of the comments made by Canada in
relation to the implementation of the Japanese labelling programme, namely to ensure that otherMembers would have sufficient time to consider the trade impact of the Standard.  She said that
details of the draft amended Standard pertaining to the following issues were not yet completed:  How
would the labelling scheme be verified and enforced?  What methods of analysis and sampling
schemes would be used to ensure accuracy of labelling?  How and when would all the necessary
methods of analysis be developed?  Would methods and sampling be subject to international scrutiny
and verification?
34. The representative of Australia associated her delegation with the comments made by
New Zealand.
35. The representative of Japan informed the Committee that in August the report of an expert
study on a potential genetically modified organisms (GMO) labelling scheme in Japan had been
submitted and was currently taken into account by the Japanese government.  He confirmed that upon
completion of a draft labelling system, the Committee would be notified.
36. The representative of the United States welcomed the information given by Japan which
would enable her delegation to provide comments.  She equally expressed her appreciation for the
information given by Canada, highlighting that there was no obligation to notify voluntary standards.
She invited Canada to keep the Committee informed of further progress.
37. The Chairman suggested that the questions and response concerning EC Regulation 881/98,
the Waste Management Directives and GMO labelling regulations be put down in writing and
circulated to the Committee.
38. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/TBT/M/17
Page 7
IV. PROGRAMME OF WORK ARISING FROM THE FIRST TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF
THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 15.4
39. The Chairman drew attention to Article 10.6 of the Agreement stating that "The Secretariat
shall, when it receives notifications in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, circulate
copies of the notifications to all Members, … and draw the attention of developing country Members
to any notifications relating to products of particular interest to them."  He said that the Secretariat, in
considering human and financial resources involved, and in taking into account the recent Survey on
the Electronic Facilities Available in National TBT Enquiry Points (G/TBT/W/105 and
G/TBT/W/105/Suppl.1 and 2 that showed e-mail availability), had decided to propose certain actions
so as to further the implementation of the provisi on.  He drew attention to the Secretariat's proposal
(Annex 1) which had been introduced to Members at the informal meeting of 16 September 1999 andhad found wide support.
40. The representative of Australia noted that in order to facilitate the process, the proposal
requested Members to provide Harmonized System (HS) numbers when notifying their draft
regulations.  Since the proposal stated that the relevant notifications would be transmitted to
developing countries via electronic mail, she was concerned that a number of developing countriesmight not possess electronic mail communication facilities, and invited the Secretariat to seek advice
from Members in this respect.  As a matter of principle, she found that the ability of all enquiry points
to communicate by electronic mail would be of benefit to all Members.
41. The Chairman replied that according to the Survey on the Electronic Facilities Available in
National TBT Enquiry Points, almost all enquiry points had e-mail facilities.
42. The representative of Hong Kong, China welcomed the initiative by the Secretariat.  She
noted that a selection of products based on 20 HS chapters might not be sufficient to certain Members.
43. The Chairman responded that "20 HS chapters" was an indicative number and a higher
number would not be rejected.
44. The representative of Canada welcomed the Secretariat's proposal and endorsed the proposed
approach as a good starting-point which could still be refined at a later stage.
45. The representative of Thailand welcomed the Secretariat's proposal.  She sought clarification
if the Secretariat would transmit the relevant notifications in the original language received.  She held
that some developing countries who used English as their second language might face translation
problems if the notifications were in French or Spanish.
46. The Chairman replied that with some delay th ese notifications were to be translated for
transmission to Members in English.  He informed the Committee that the Secretariat was planning to
purchase and develop the necessary computer hard- and soft-ware, but Members were welcome to
provide any further comments to the Secretariat before 15 October.
A. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT BY MEMBERS
UNDER ARTICLE 15.2
47. The Chairman drew attention to the fact that so far, 57 notifications under Article 15.2 had
been received, containing statements on the implementation and administration of the Agreement
from 72 Members (G/TBT/2/Add.1-57).  93 Members had notified the existence of their enquiry
points in document G/TBT/ENQ/15.
48. The representative of the United States welcomed the information provided.  She recalled that
under the First Triennial Review, the Committee had asked delegations who had not submitted their
statement of implementation under Article 15.2 to inform the Committee of reasons for not doing so.G/TBT/M/17
Page 8
Possible explanations might comprise uncertainty as to what kind of information was expected to be
provided to the Committee or domestic implementation problems that could be addressed through
technical assistance.  She requested Members failing on this obligation to clarify their intentions with
respect to implementation of the provisions.  She pointed to the importance attached to
"implementation" by the US in the preparation for the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  The US had
submitted a paper to the General Council (WT/GC/W/323) highlighting its intention to ensure that allobligations it had assumed under the Uruguay Round be properly fulfilled.  She hoped that Ministers,
in a future work programme, would put increased attention on implementation issues and the work of
the Committee.  She invited delegations who might need assistance to make this known.
49. The Committee took note of the statements made.
B. PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OF TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
50. The Chairman drew attention to document s G/TBT/W/71 and G/TBT/W/80 by Canada and
Thailand concerning national experience with technical regulations.
51. The Committee took note of the statement made.
C. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, GUIDES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
52. The Chairman drew attention to documents G/TBT/W/75/Rev.1 (a revised proposal from the
US on Transparency in International Standards), G/TBT/W/87/Rev.1 (a revised/simplified version of
the EC paper on the Conditions for the Acceptance a nd Use of International Standards in the Context
of the TBT Agreement), G/TBT/W/113 (a Japanese  paper on Issues concerning International
Standards and International Standardization Bodies), as well as G/TBT/W/60, 61, 81 and 99
(submissions made by Colombia, Canada, Thailand and Australia on their national experience in the
use of international standards, guides and recomm endations).  He also drew attention to a new
Japanese paper entitled "Japanese Proposal for Amendment of the TBT Agreement" (G/TBT/W/121).He recalled that at the last meeting, with respec t to the proposals made on international standards, two
sets of questions had been debated:  a "content" and a "form" question.  With relation to the "content"
question, he summarized that the issues being discussed could broadly be categorized into the
following:  (i) issues related to international stan dardizing bodies (such as their principles, procedures
of standards development, the issue of transparency, the decision-making process as well as theparticipation of developing countries);  (ii) issues related to the definition or requirements of
international standards (such as an understanding on what constituted an international standard within
the context of the Agreement);  (iii) issues relate d to the function and use of international standards,
including the reasons for the non-use of international standards;  and (iv) any other elements.
53. The representative of the European Communities introduced document G/TBT/W/87/Rev.1,
and emphasized that the document did not replace its predecessor, but complemented and simplified
it.  It dealt with principles related to internatio nal standardizing bodies, the issue of international
standards themselves and the use of international standards.  He noted that the nature of a standard
and the nature of the standardizing body could not be entirely divorced.  He also advocated that
greater emphasis be laid on the use of international standards.
54. He explained that the TBT Agreement and the Code of Good Practice (Annex 3 of the
Agreement) gave a privilege to international standa rds.  International standardizing bodies would play
a more important role than they did before the ex istence of the TBT Agreement.  This implied that
international standardizing bodies should be accountable to a broad range of interests which could be
demonstrated if the bodies observed the following principles:  (i) status:  A distinction ought to be
made between an international and other standa rdizing bodies.  Objectivity would require that
standardizing bodies could not claim two different levels of status (e .g. national, regional or
international) for their core activities at the same time.  For example, CEN could not be regarded both
as a regional and an international body, but as a regional body;  (ii) impartiality:  All countries with an
interest in standardization ought to have access to participation in the work.  There should be
international control over the results, without either  discrimination or privilege as to the nationality ofG/TBT/M/17
Page 9
the participants.  In the context of improving access to participation by developing countries, it might
be appropriate to use technical assistance, in line with Article 11 of the Agreement;  (iii) openness:
Participation in the work of an international standardization body should be possible on equal terms,
without discrimination as to nationality.  Recalling paragraph G of Annex 3, he said that, generally,
participation should take place through one delegation representing all standardizing bodies in theterritory of a Member;  (iv) transparency:  He recalled that this was an issue taken up by the US.  He
explained that transparency was crucial both in the establishment of work programmes and in the
ultimate results, which should be made publicly available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
terms;  (v) effectiveness:  He noted that this was of particular concern to the Japanese delegation.  The
work undertaken by international standardizing bodies should respond to market and regulatory needs,
and the standards produced should be delivered on time and reflect the state of the art.  Work
programmes and standards should be coherent both internally and with other internationalstandardizing bodies, i.e. conflicting standards should not be maintained, and national and regional
standardizing bodies should act coherently in international standardization activities.
55. He contrasted international bodies that held a privileged position under the Agreement, but
were not subject to a code of practice, with regional and national bodies being subject to the Code of
Good Practice without being privileged.  He proposed to give concrete form to these principles ofaccountability by drawing up a voluntary code of good practice or a set of guidelines for international
standardizing bodies, which might then privilege international standards prepared by them.  He argued
that a proliferation of competing international standards ought to be avoided, and that no more than
one standard ought to be in place for the same scope.  Purchasers and suppliers would be confused as
to which international standards to use.  He reiterat ed that these issues were closely related within the
context of the Committee's examination of the work of international standardizing bodies.  Reverting
to the set of criteria specified by the EC, he said it would be difficult to separate out individual issues
without reaching some kind of agreement that covered the whole set of criteria.
56. The representative of Japan made reference to both his delegation's former and recently
distributed paper (G/TBT/W/121).  He recalled that  in the last meeting, his delegation had presented
document G/TBT/W/113, emphasizing the procedures for developing international standards, namely
transparency, openness and impartiality.  Additionally, market relevancy had been stressed, i.e. the
fact that international standards should meet the needs of the global market.  He pointed out that in
furtherance of the original paper, the new proposal was in the form of a proposed revision of the text
of the TBT Agreement.  It contained two basic ideas:  international standards and conformity
assessment.  He elucidated that concerning the first issue, an addition to Article 4 was proposed, and
named Article 4 bis "International Standards".  Paragraph one of this section spelled out how
international standards should be developed in line with Article 2 of the TBT Agreement.  He laid out
that provisions A, B, C and F referred to transparency, D to openness, E to impartiality, and Paragraph
two to market relevancy.  This would be determined by looking at the substantial global market share
of products in terms of consumption.  He conceded that the Committee might wish to have a technical
discussion on determining market relevancy.
57. The representative of the United States welcomed the papers of the EC and Japan.  She
recalled that the US had tabled a proposal in the form of a draft Committee decision
(G/TBT/W/75/Rev.1).  It called upon Members as they participated in international standardizing
bodies to be mindful of certain procedures to enhance the process of standards development.  For a
better understanding of the US proposal she referr ed to another US document (G/TBT/W/64).  She
expressed her hope that the Committee could reach agreement on her delegation's proposal.
58. She requested clarification concerning the EC's pa per:  The EC held that it was implicit in the
TBT Agreement that international bodies should be accountable to a broad range of interests.  While
she shared the sentiment to see a broad range of interests involved, she was not sure how the EC had
determined this as being implicit in the Agreement.  She observed that the US and Japanese papers
called for the publication of specific draft standards and not just the work programme of the
international standardizing body, which was, however , all the EC mentioned.  She found this to be
insufficient in terms of transparency.  She furthe r explained that the opportunity for written commentsG/TBT/M/17
Page 10
reflected current US procedures for governments and private bodies on a domestic level and proposed
that at an international level similar procedures be followed.  She noted that the EC's paper was
unclear as to whether the Committee itself was supposed to develop guidelines to bind international
bodies.  Although the Committee had already expressed its concern earlier that it did not possess the
jurisdiction to do so, this still seemed to be part of the EC's paper.
59. She commented on the EC's paper regarding the provision on "status" of standardizing bodies
and the proposed distinction between national, regional and international bodies.  She wondered about
the need for this distinction, although she recogniz ed the privileged status given to international
bodies in the Agreement.  The distinction between national and regional would become increasingly
irrelevant in the global economy, especially in the field of voluntary standardization.  She reckoned it
would be preferable if the Committee focused on inte rnational bodies given the strong encouragement
in the Agreement to use international standards.
60. Regarding the Japanese proposal she remarked that the notion of market relevancy might
already be captured through Article 2.4 allowing Members not to use international standards where
these were perceived to be ineffective or inappropriate for the fulfilment of legitimate objectives.
This provision would provide leeway in dealing with international standards that were obsolete or
otherwise not appropriate for domestic purposes.  She found that an alternative way to ensure market
or technological relevance was to include regular reviews as a principle of international standardsdevelopment.  This was an element incorporated in the Committee decision proposed by the US.  She
invited Japan to take these comments into consideration.
61. The representative of Slovenia expressed his delegation's association with the EC's proposal,
and emphasized that the principles of impartiality, openness, transparency and effectiveness should
apply for international standardizing bodies.
62. The representative of New Zealand expressed her delegation's appreciation for the EC, Japan
and US papers, as well as her view that action on the issue of international standards by the
TBT Committee was timely.  She commended the principles of "status" and "impartiality" in the EC's
paper which she believed were useful additions to the principles of transparency and openness as laid
out in both the US and previous Japanese proposals.  The concepts of status and impartiality wereparticularly important for smaller Members who needed to ensure that they would be able to
participate effectively in the work of international standardizing bodies.
63. The representative of Chile welcomed the proposals and explanations given by the EC and
Japan.  Referring to the subject of market needs and the importance of market requirements, he
commented that although the intention was good, he identified the risk of placing a barrier to the
flexibility needed in setting standards and to th e necessary freedom for technological innovations.
Further deliberations on this topic were necessary so that these "good" concepts would not result inblocking the development of new pr oducts, new markets and new processes.
64. He agreed that putting order to the process of participation in international standard-setting
bodies was warranted.  However, this should not result in some kind of supra -nationality or
superstructure deciding on what could qualify as an international standardizing body.  He said that,
after all, standards developed by these bodies were voluntary, in contrasted to technical regulationswhere more precise linkages between the states and the standard-setting bodies were needed.  These
bodies should be free and flexible in their operations and continue to be exposed to economic realities
in deciding on their activities.  He requested the EC  and Japan to give more information on how their
respective suggestions could be implemented withou t creating a rigid structure for standard-setting
bodies.
65. The representative of Japan, in response to US concerns, stated that he was not sure whether
the exception clause contained in Article 2.4 applied to market relevancy.  He thought that in drafting
this text during the Uruguay Round the assumption had been made that international standards did
exist which were market relevant.  He believed this assumption to be mistaken.  He agreed with the
comments by Chile that a determination of market needs might block new products and newG/TBT/M/17
Page 11
processes.  He indicated that further discussion on a case by case basis was needed to come to terms
with a mechanism to determine the market relevancy of international standards.  Also in response to
Chile, he explained that the Japanese proposal preferred procedural criteria to simply designating
international standardizing bodies in order to prev ent the extreme case of a superstructure.  It was
preferable, he said, to stick to the essence of intern ational standards rather than to explicitly identify
international standardizing bodies.
66. The representative of the European Communities clarified that the EC did not intend to
impose the Code of Good Practice or any other rules on international standardizing bodies.  He
suggested that it was, however, in the intention of the proposal to set out some kind of code which
international standardizing bodies might care to observe and which would be a factor in determining
whether a standard was truly international.  He argued that the relevant provisions of the Agreement
went beyond merely "encouraging" the use of international standards, with the term being "shall use".He hypothesized that if a Member had introduced a standard or technical regulation and were held
before a dispute panel on the grounds that it had not based it on an international standard while one
existed, then, in the panel proceedings, it might be a relevant factor if the international standardizing
body had decided to abide by a set of criteria determined in advance.  He concluded that a
standardizing body might find it advantageous for its own position to adopt such a code.  Given thatnational and regional standardizing bodies were obliged to abide by the Code under Annex 3 of the
Agreement which included the obligation to use international standards as a basis for their own
standards, and given that Members were held to use all measures available to them to ensure that the
Code was adopted, the EC found the distinction be tween a national, regional and an international
standardizing bodies to be extremely important.  Moreover, with the strong use of standards in the EC,interlocutors both at the regional and at the national levels to transpose EC standards were necessary.
67. He raised doubts about the Japanese proposal to measure the market relevancy of
international standards by the share of trade in terms of consumption and warned about potential
difficulties in gathering verifiable data and compiling accurate statistics.  On the other hand, he
suggested that a standard treated as international ough t to govern the majority or at least a substantial
part of trade or regulations in a particular area.
68. Referring to comments made by the US, he explained that the proposed accountability of
international standardizing bodies to a broad range of in terest tied in to the aspect of participation.  It
was his conviction that an international standardizing body had to be open to participation by anyone.
He stated that access to participation by developing country Members needed to be improved and
suggested that better use of Article 11 of the Agreement had to be made.  Given the wide range of
activities in standardization and developing countries' difficulties in participating therein, a muchwider discussion on this issue would be warranted.  Regarding transparency, he added that not all the
aspects of transparency had been fleshed out in the EC's proposal, but the EC paper intended to
highlight that there were many other factors besides transparency.
69. The representative of Japan agreed with the difficulties involved in verifying market
relevancy of international standards.  He highlighted that the Japanese proposal was the first draft of
an initial proposal and meant for discussion.  The question of market relevancy had to be solved on a
case by case basis and might even contribute to making a proper distinction between international
standardizing bodies and others.  In this respect he also alerted to the difficulty in having more than
one standard with the market relevant meaning for a particular scope.
70. The representative of Switzerland underlined that his delegation endorsed the position of the
EC, and that more technical assistance targeted to participation in standard-setting activities was
desirable.
71. The representative of Canada welcomed all three proposals, and suggested that their contents
be brought together.  To this end, he was of the opinion that a more informal approach by the
Committee was timely.G/TBT/M/17
Page 12
72. The representative of the European Communities,  referring to principles for international
standards as contained in document G/TBT/W/87/Rev.1, stated that some international standardizing
bodies might not necessarily produce all of their documents in the form of international standards.  He
cited the example of ISO producing documents whic h were industry agreements or documents that
did not have the full level of consensus.
73. He explained that his delegation had developed two sets of properties of international
standards.  One set contained:  (i) their elaboration by recognized bodies, a sine qua non ;  (ii) their
establishment in full transparency and openness to participation at the world level.  This, he said,
implied open announcement of the project, announcement of public availability of the draft, which
responded to an American concern, and active seeking of consensus at the global level;  and (iii) their
preparation by global consensus processes, accounting for all relevant interests and characterized by
the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues from any country or, at least, any country that
had shown interest in taking part in the work.
74. His delegation expected, as a second set of properties, international standards to have a clear
scope, give requirements appropriate to the stated scope and be performance-based where possible
with objective means for determining compliance.  International standards should be coherent, i.e. not
give requirement that vary or contradict those of another international standard with a coincident or
overlapping scope.  He argued that having two standards with different requirements, both of thembeing regarded as international, would codify rather  than remove barriers to trade.  International
standards should be non-discriminatory, i.e. not intentionally favour a particular supplier.  He
explained that a choice might have to be made  between two technologies, coinciding with two
different suppliers, and pointed to the problem that the pure test of market relevancy would not
necessarily be impartial between suppliers.  He continued that international standards should be basedon scientific or technical principles, i.e. be of a certain quality, and be publicly available on fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, which should include the right to transpose them at the
national and regional levels.  He noted that these principles for international standards were to a
certain extent linked to the issue of international standardizing bodies.
75. The representative of the United States said her delegation did not propose to redraft the
definition of international standards, but to make an initial step in enhancing the definition of an
international standard by clarifying the types of procedures that should underpin their development.
She explained that the US proposal referred to the notion of openness and of transparency, which
could be drawn from the existing provisions of the Agreement, and of consensus which was
highlighted in the US proposal and drawn from ISO Guide 2.  She believed that if followed properly
these central features of international standards development would result in the type of documents
foreseen by the TBT Agreement to facilitate trade and prevent trade barriers.  She found it difficult torelate the section on principles for international standards in the EC's paper to the US and Japanese
papers and to previous discussions on international standardizing bodies.
76. The representative of the ISO clarified that if documents published by ISO were not
international standards, the state of consensus would be clearly marked on the document.  He set forth
that in order to respond to market needs, it had to be taken into account that consensus processescould be very long.  For some technology it would be very important that the document be known
before full consensus was reached.  These documents would not be international standards, but only
for the use of the market.  He assured that intern ational standards when labelled as ISO international
standards or as originating from IEC or ITU had gone through the full consensus process.
77. The representative of Korea expressed his appreciation for the new document prepared by the
European Commission.  He requested clarification on the meaning of "recognized" international
standardizing body under Heading 3 "The principles for international standards", para. 9, sub-item 8
of the paper.  He would feel concerned if this implied that the TBT Committee would set up a
procedure to recognize international standardizing bodies.  This would give rise to the problem of
jurisdiction and the independence of these bodies.  His understanding of the Japanese paper(G/TBT/W/113) with regard to Section IV "R ecommendations" was that it proposed the TBT
Committee should examine the possibility of establis hing a fundamental rule relating to internationalG/TBT/M/17
Page 13
standards and international standardizing bodies.  He felt that in order to be in a position to recognize
international standardizing bodies, it might be more useful to establish rules or principles concerning
the bodies.
78. The representative of the European Communities said that Members of the WTO could
recognize that certain bodies fulfilled a set of criteria that Members had drawn up in advance.  The
US paper referred to the procedures which a body should carry out, hence, it seemed reasonable to
assess these bodies as fulfilling such requirements.  He cited ISO/IEC Guide 2 as the related standard
text which made reference to "recognized" standard izing bodies as having competence.  If there were
no means of assessing a body, any document could be claimed to be an international standard causing
administrative chaos.  Therefore he contended that, to a certain extent, an assessment of bodies, that
can produce international standards, was appropriate.  Such recognition could be based on the
principles outlined by the EC, although its proposal was still tentative.
79. The representative of Brazil welcomed the thre e papers.  With regard to the EC paper she
stated that there were similarities to the Brazilia n position, such as contrasting international standards
with regional and national standards, although further clarification was needed.  The status of
standardizing bodies, be it national, regional or international, should receive further attention.  In
regards to the US paper, she sought clarification on the point stipulating the publication of a notice atan early appropriate stage in such a manner as to enable interested parties within the territory of a
WTO Member to become acquainted with it, that the international body proposes to introduce a
particular standard.  She was unsure what "interested parties" meant and asked whether that referred
to all agencies.  She stated that in Brazil there was one national agency that represented all other
standardizing bodies.  She was concerned about the confusion created if several hundreds of agencieshad the right to voice an opinion.
80. The representative of the United States responded that, in the US, an interested party could be
anyone with an interest in the subject, not necessar ily organized as an agency or body, but this would
be a genuinely domestic decision.
81. The representative of Canada stated that from previous conversations he had gathered the
understanding that if one were to define an international standardizing body and decide whether a
body met certain criteria or not, this decision would not lie with the WTO.  It would rather be up to
the international standardizing body to decide whether it was international, regional or national.  The
discussion of such principles would ultimately imply an assessment of a large number of institutions
against those criteria, a workload which Members might wish to reconsider.
82. The representative of the European Communities clarified that a body should not be able to
unilaterally arrogate to itself the right to be an international standardizing body that would impose its
standards on governments through Article 2 of the TBT Agreement.  He made clear that the WTO had
the right to determine what was obligatory under it s own rules.  Therefore, the principles for
international standardizing bodies had to be clear and it would be up to the standardizing body to
abide by them or not.  Under the principles laid down by WTO Members, the body could be
recognized as an international standardizing body, su bject to the principles really being followed.  He
stressed that this markedly differed from drawing up a list of rules imposed on international bodies
which was not the EC's intention.
83. The representative of the Mexico expressed strong interest in the issues of both definition of
international standardizing bodies and the work done by them in preparing international standards as
well as in the participation of countries in those organizations and the way in which those standardswere approved.
84. The representative of Australia said her delegation supported elements of each of the papers
presented.  She agreed with Japan on the importance of the concept of market relevance and on
process and procedures as being key.  She suggested that the way forward would be the development
of a guide for international standards writing, encompassing many of the issues discussed.G/TBT/M/17
Page 14
85. The delegate of the FAO requested the EC to clarify how its proposal aimed at revising the
obligation that countries had to apply international standards.
86. The representative of the European Communities referred to the section of its paper relating
to international standards and trade, i.e. the use of international standards.  He said that regulations
should be confined to essential requirements while referring to international standards, that remained
voluntary, for their technical content.  Transparen cy would be useful in order to know the areas in
which regulations made use of international standard s.  He reiterated that international standards
should be coherent which would be crucial for their use in trade.  Alluding to the Japanese proposal he
warned that if they simply reflected market shares, a problem could arise with two standards sharing
50% of the market each.  He also held that transpos ition of international standards into regional and
national standards was important, because it made the international standard visible at the regional
and national level.  He also set forth that impartiality and openness of any international
standardization process implied that developing countries were not excluded de facto .  While in most
systems they were not excluded de jure , this might not always be sufficient, as developing countries
might not necessarily be able to take a full part in the work.  He stressed the necessity for provisions
for capacity-building and technical assistance, especially when developing countries had a substantial
market presence for a product being standardized.
87. The representative of the United States suspected that the EC was missing the aspect of
market relevance.  She highlighted that standardizing bodies did not impose their standards on
anybody, but regulators or actors in the market chose to make use of standards.  She concluded that
the notion of market relevance was attractive, notwithstanding the difficulties related to the type of
measurement proposed by Japan.  The extent to which these documents were relevant for regulators'
or purchasers' purposes would depend on procedural issues among others.
88. The Chairman recalled that there had been three broad suggestions regarding the "form" of
the result of the discussions being held:  a possible Committee decision, an amendment of the text and
a suggestion for a voluntary code of good practice for international standardizing bodies.
89. The representative of Canada stated that the Committee could make substantial progress
through the normal procedures available to it under the Agreement and that there was neither a
necessity nor desirability of taking the approach being proposed by Japan to insert new text directly
into the Agreement.
90. The representative of Mexico was unfavourable  towards inserting text  into the Agreement as
proposed by Japan.  While another avenue for solving this matter should be sought, he was of the
opinion that more substantive work was needed in the first place.  He cited the section in the EC's
document concerning the nature of an international standard as an example, whereby a series of
elements was provided without clarifying whether an international standard would have to beapproved by consensus with the participation of developing countries.  He suggested to work more on
the substantive issues and leave open all form-related options.
91. The representative of New Zealand voiced his support for a decision by the Committee.  Like
Canada and Mexico she believed that the Japanese proposal was not necessarily the best way at this
stage.  She found it reassuring that all three proposals were moving largely into the same directionconcerning substance/content and therefore found the form question to be not as imperative as it
might seem.  She urged that the US proposal for a decision on transparency would be adopted soon by
the Committee, because she saw it as a building block to moving to a more extensive decision by the
Committee on some of the other issues raised, such as the principles for international standardizing
bodies.  She reiterated that her delegation would support the US proposal on the basis that it was thefirst step towards a more comprehensive decision.
92. The delegation of Hong Kong, China agreed with Mexico that it was more important to work
on the substance first with the form to eventually emerge.  She revealed to be tentatively in favour of
adopting voluntary guidelines or a code of good practice, but more time was needed for the study of
the proposals.G/TBT/M/17
Page 15
93. The representative of Japan agreed that content was important and form could follow the
content discussion.  He voiced, however, his delegation's concern as to the validity of the decision.
He said that it was his understanding that for an im portant and central issue, such as the definition of
international standards and guidelines for international and regional conformity assessment bodies,
provisions of the Agreement needed to be amended, if possible, during the next Round of tradenegotiations.
94. The Committee took note of the statements made.
D. CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
95. The Chairman drew attention to documents G/TBT/W/63 (a US paper on Supplier's
Declaration of Conformity), G/TBT/W/70 (a EC paper on ISO/IEC Guides on Conformity
Assessment), G/TBT/W/79 (a Swiss paper on Auto nomous Recognition of the Results of Foreign
Conformity Assessment), G/TBT/W/85 (a Thai paper on Experience in the Various Types ofConformity Assessment Procedures), G/TBT/W/ 99 (an Australian paper on National Experiences
with Standards and Technical Regulations), G/TBT/W/72/Rev.1 (an updated list of relevant
international guides and recommendations related to conformity assessment procedures), as well as
G/TBT/W/118 (a recent Australian paper on a Code of Good Practice for the Accreditation of
Conformity Assessment Bodies).
96. The representative of Australia stated that the adoption of international conformity assessment
practices was an emerging issue which, if addres sed and adopted by WTO Members, would further
enhance trade facilitation.  To encourage further discussion of the issue within the TBT Committee
Australia had developed a draft paper on the transparency process for accreditation of conformity
assessment.  She emphasized that the adoption of the processes outlined in the paper would be on avoluntary basis only and would not pose further ma ndatory obligations on Members.  She explained
that accreditation was a mechanism by which any form of conformity assessment could be given
credibility.  It sought to evaluate the confidence of conformity assessment bodies.  She said the paper
addressed a number of issues raised at the WTO Symposium on Conformity Assessment Procedures.
97. She believed that the process set out in the paper would form a basis for the negotiation of
mutual recognition agreements mentioned in Article 6 of the Agreement and for the adoption of
autonomous recognition as outlined in the Swiss paper (G/TBT/W/79).  It would also allow
governments to move to more light-handed forms of regulation including manufacturers' and
suppliers' declaration of conformity to standards or regulations.  Allowing imported products to be
tested and certified in the exporting country to the importing country's requirements would reduce the
compliance burden of Members and facilitate the freer movement of goods and services.  However,
Members would have to have confidence in other Members' conformity assessment results.  Shesuggested that agreeing to internationally recogniz ed standards and guides was one process to ensure
that principles of competency, transparency and equity were inherent in any system.
98. She informed the Committee that in order to enable accreditation bodies around the world to
recognize each other's conformity assessment bodies, regional networks had been established.  These
included bodies in the Asia-Pacific area, Europe, Southern Africa and Latin America.  These bodieswere working cooperatively to develop standards and codes of practice in conjunction with ISO and to
develop uniform procedures of accreditation and conformity assessment that were recognized by
many Members.
99. She proposed that the paper once finalized by the TBT Committee be adopted as an additional
Annex to strengthen the Agreement.  The aim of the Annex was transparency in the process foraccreditation of conformity assessment.  She reiterated that adoption by Members of the proposed
Annex would be on a voluntary basis and would be only applicable to those Members who used
accreditation as part of their conformity assessment requirements.  She invited comments on the
paper.G/TBT/M/17
Page 16
100. The representative of Japan presented the Japanese proposal concerning conformity
assessment (G/TBT/W/121).  In referring to the wo rding concerning guidelines and recommendations
developed by international standardizing bodies for conformity assessment under Article 5.4 of the
Agreement ("international guides"), he noted that the Japanese proposal contained similar definitions
or procedures for the development of such international guides.  He again pointed to Article 2 of the
Agreement and refered to the proposals on international standards in the first part of the Japanesepaper.  In the proposal under paragraph 9.2.1, reference was made to the previous text under Article 4
bis.  He stated that, concerning conformity assessment, there should be a clear distinction between the
body developing normative documents and the body implementing those documents.  He explained
that Paragraph 9.2.2 refered to reference documents developed by international systems of conformity
assessment for the implementation of conformity assessment.
101. The representative of the European Communitie s welcomed the initiatives from Australia and
Japan.  He mentioned that the EC's paper (G/TBT/W /70) had a similar goal in that it stressed the
importance to the TBT Agreement of making use of relevant ISO/IEC Guides.  He believed that
businesses would welcome developments into the direction of the "tested once, accepted everywhere"
principle.  He welcomed the Australian clarification that the proposed code was a purely voluntary
exercise.
102. The representative of Chile welcomed both documents and highlighted their relevance for
economic development.  The documents, however, did not specify (once the guidelines or code of
good practice had been agreed to) what the m echanism would be to determine whether these
guidelines or code had been implemented or not.  He asked whether it would be in the WTO or the
ISO, and whether the way of verifying compliance would be, e.g. through annual reviews.  This
would be to prevent that attempts to advance the is sue through voluntary codes just result in a set of
good intentions, i.e. a mere recognition of the problem.
103. The representative of the United States referred to the US paper submitted to the General
Council (GC/W/323), expressing its interest in furthe ring considerations on a code of good practice on
conformity assessment as part of the ongoing wo rk in the Committee.  She welcomed the questions
raised by Chile and the Australian proposal on a code of good practice for the accreditation ofconformity assessment bodies, which could serve as a basis for discussions.  She emphasized that the
Symposium on Conformity Assessment Procedures held in June 1999 had been useful and had
provided a rich background of information for the Committee to draw from in discussions.  She
declared that conformity assessment procedures presented the most challenging area for preventing
and resolving technical trade barriers.  Significant improvements in the implementation of the
Agreement were needed in this area.
104. She considered the US's idea as reflected in document GC/W/323 to be broader than what had
been presented by Australia.  The US proposal referenced the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 of the
Agreement representing the full range of conformity assessment obligations.  She confirmed that the
idea of a code of good practice was interesting and merited further discussion as one means of
identifying for Members how best to implement the provisions and fulfil the purposes of Articles 5-9.
While she considered the Australian paper to be a good start, she felt that by focusing onaccreditation, it only addressed one aspect of a larger issue dealt with in the Agreement, namely the
lack of acceptance by importing authorities of test results undertaken by foreign conformity
assessment bodies.
105. She identified that the main problem was how to establish the necessary conditions to create
confidence in conformity assessment results among regulators.  Accreditation was only one option,among many, for establishing technical competence.  She appreciated the clarification of Australia
that its proposed code could be voluntary and would only apply when accreditation was used.
Otherwise, the Australian proposal could have appeared to promote accreditation as the preferred
means of assuring technical competence of assessment bodies.  She noted that the Australian paper
also promoted mutual recognition arrangements  among accreditation bodies.  She was concerned
about resource implications and about the apparent assumption that such voluntary arrangementsG/TBT/M/17
Page 17
among accreditors would be automatically accepted by regulators.  This had not been the
US experience, and the aspect merited further discussion.
106. She held that some consideration ought to be given to the specific interests of regulators in
developing confidence in conformity assessment results.  Accreditation was not the only means to
give regulators this confidence and, as noted above, might not be sufficient by itself.  Her delegationsupported the consideration of alternative means of achieving recognition, for example through
reliance on supplier's declaration of conformity (with or without accreditation).  In this context she
referred to a paper by Thailand which had seemed to provoke a lot of constructive discussion at the
last Committee meeting.  She believed that to fulfill the obligation in Article 6.4 of the Agreement,
which she described as national treatment in accreditation/recognition of conformity assessment
bodies, cooperative arrangements between domestic  and foreign conformity assessment bodies, and
other means would also be useful instead of fo cusing almost exclusively on mutual recognition
agreements (MRAs).  She invited further discussion on a more broad-ranging guideline in this area.
107. The representative of Canada thanked Australia for its contribution to this discussion.  He
expressed his intention to refer it to the domestic accreditation organization and maybe those
conformity assessment bodies that got accredited.  He urged the Committee to have a broader
philosophical discussion at some point of how many  codes or guidelines it might wish to adopt over
the next 3 to 5 years and to project the consequences of such an approach.  He counted three proposals
being on the table for guidelines of different kinds and multiple proposals within each of those.
108. The representative of Hong Kong, China welcom ed the Australian paper, stating that her
delegation would not be opposed to the voluntary nature of the proposed code.  She commented on
paragraph (k) of the draft where the issue of MRAs was mentioned, and proposed to make referenceto ensure the open and non-discriminatory nature of MRAs.
109. The representative of Switzerland welcomed the Australian contribution and expressed her
view that it would entail positive unilateral and multilateral effects on the recognition of conformity
assessment results.
110. The representative of Japan welcomed the Australian paper and identified a common
direction, although Japan was taking the route of proposing an amendment to the provisions of the
Agreement.  He shared the US's concern about the Australian paper focussing exclusively on
accreditation of conformity assessment bodies.  In response to Chile, he explained that a code of good
practice as opposed to the amendment of the text of the Agreement would have consequences for the
format of implementation.  The code of good practice could be either signed or not, and would
become mandatory only if signed.  By contrast, when this issue was taken up directly into the
provisions of the Agreement, Members would have to consider it as an obligation.
111. The representative of Mexico welcomed the Australian proposal and announced substantive
comments after consultation with domestic authorities.
112. The representative of the European Communities noted that many proposals were on the table
and inquired about plans to try and make progress within the framework of the Committee.  He
recalled that at the last meeting, discussions were held on supplier's declaration, and the EC hadsuggested that Members gave information on the areas for which they applied supplier's declaration.
In the EU, supplier's declaration was used in several areas.  However, he made clear that not every
product could be placed on the market by supplier's declaration, and it was only applicable to less
sophisticated products.  He listed the EC Directives where supplier's declaration was used:  low
voltage electrical equipment, simple pressure vessels, toys, electromagnetic compatibility, machinery,personal protective equipment, medical devices, recreational craft, refrigeration appliances, pressure
equipment, in vitrio diagnostic medical devices, radio and telecom terminal equipment.
113. The representative of Australia thanked Members for constructive comments, and announced
to work with Members to improve the paper and bring it back to the next Committee meeting.G/TBT/M/17
Page 18
Following on the EC's remarks, she asked whether there were any processes within the Committee
structure to help advance the papers.
114. The Committee took note of the statements made.
E. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE UNDER ARTICLE 11
115. No statement was made under this item.
F. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER ARTICLE 12
116. No statement was made under this item.
G. OTHER ELEMENTS
117. No statement was made under this item.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
118. The representative of the United States recalled that at the last meeting, the representative of
the UN/ECE had reported on their work.  She informed the Committee that their proposed agreement
on technical harmonization could be of interest to Members.  This agreement involved bothWTO Members and Non-Members.  It was her understanding that it was to promote the
implementation of obligations and principles that were of interest to the TBT Committee.  She
wondered about what legal implications the pote ntial conclusion of an agreement in the UN/ECE
might have for WTO Members and Non-Members.  She had noticed differences in language,
definitions etc.  She invited other Members to study the document and return to the Committee if
necessary.
119. The representative of the FAO informed the Committee about the outcome of the 23
rd Session
of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and on FAO and Codex activities which were of relevance to
the WTO/TBT Committee (Annex 2).
120. The Chairman concluded that delegations should consult with each other in order to pursue
the proposals made and identify common grounds.  For the purpose of transparency he advised that
the Committee be informed at some stage.  He raised  the idea of having informal consultations of the
Committee at the beginning of year 2000.G/TBT/M/17
Page 19
Annex 1
Proposal by the Secretariat
Implementation of Article 10.6 of the Agre ement on Technical Barriers to Trade
Article 10.6 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade states that "The Secretariat
shall, when it receives notifications in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, circulate
copies of the notifications to all Members … and draw the attention of developing country Members
to any notifications relating to products of particular interest to them."
Considering the possible human and financial resources which would be involved, the
Secretariat has decided to propose to undertake the following actions so as to further the
implementation of Article 10.6 of the Agreement, and especially to draw the attention of developing
country Members to any notifications relating to products of particular interest to them.
1. Developing country Members are requested to provide the Secretariat with a list of products
of  particular interest to them (around of 20 items) as indicated by  HS numbers  containing
two digits  (e.g., wood and articles of wood;  wood charco al would therefore be indicated by HS 44).
There is a total of 97 chapters in the Harmonized System, i.e., the HS numbers provided will be from
01 to 97.
2. Developing country Members are also each requested to provide the Secretariat with the
electronic mail address   of an authority designated to receive the notifications relating to products of
particular interest to them.
3. Members when notifying draft technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures
under Articles 2.9.2, 2.10.1, 5.6.2 and 5.7.1 are requested to, under item 4 of the notification form,
provide the HS numbers  of the products covered, where applicable.
4. Based on the information provided by the developing country Members and the notifying
Members, the Secretariat will transmit the relevant notifications (in the original language received),
by electronic mail  to the designated authorities of developing country Members concerned.
5. Developing country Members will have the possibility to update the information provided
under paragraphs 1 and 2.
6. All Members' permanent missions to the WTO will continue to receive paper copies of all
TBT notifications.  TBT documents, including notifications, are normally circulated to all Members in
English, and subsequently in any other WTO working language of their choice.
7. Members are also reminded that TBT notifications are available electronically through the
WTO home page (www.wto.org).G/TBT/M/17
Page 20
Annex 2
Statement by the Representative of the FAO
I would like to highlight the outcomes of the 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission which was held in Rome from 23 June to July 1999.  The session was attended by608 delegates and representatives from 103 Member Countries, one observer country and
representatives from 63 international governmental and non-governmental organizations including
UN agencies and the WTO.  All decisions made in the Session were adopted by consensus.
The Commission amended three Rules of Proce dure of the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
among others, the rule X.2 Elaboration of and Adoption of Standards to stress the need for consensus
when adopting standards and related texts.  The Commission also established three ad hocIntergovernmental Codex Task Forces, one of which is the task force on Foods derived from
Biotechnology, to be hosted by the Government of Japan.  The task force will consider food safety
and nutrition aspects of such foods and develop international recommendations in this area.
The Commission adopted 31 new or revised Codex standards, guidelines and related texts.
One guidelines relevant for this Committee is th e Guidelines for the Development of Equivalence
Agreements regarding Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (food safety
matters).  The Commission also agreed to develop guidance on the judgement of equivalence of
systems for inspection and certification in relation to technical regulations other than sanitary
measures, in parallel with food safety issues.
The Commission expressed appreciation for the technical assistance provided to developing
countries to allow application and use of Codex standards at national level and in the framework of
the SPS and TBT/WTO agreements.  In this regard, I would like to inform this Committee about
relevant activities implemented by FAO in this area.  FAO continues to sponsor and conductseminars, workshops and technical meetings on a national and regional basis on a range of important
topic with relation to food quality and safety and international trade.  These topics include food
control management and administration, risk analysis methods and procedures;  requirements of
newly applied international trading agreements;  fool labelling;  laboratory quality assurance;
validation of food analysis methods;  development of equivalence agreements and mutual recognition
programmes in the area of food safety and quality.  In addition more than 30 projects are presently
under implementation in this field worldwide.
In relation to the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements, including the
TBT Agreement, FAO is implementing an Umbrel la Program for Training on Uruguay Round and
Future Multilateral Trade Negotiations in Agriculture aimed at enhancing national capabilities on
WTO matters related to food and agriculture and ensure that developing countries are well informedand equal partners in the negotiating process.  Fourteen sub-regional workshops are being organized
in different regions of the world:  four in Africa;  th ree in Asia;  tow in the Near East ;  two in Europe;
and three in Latin America.  Detailed information about venues and dates for these workshops are
available at FAO website.  Some of the meeting planned for this quarter are:
Cairo (26-30 September);  Dakar (4-6 October);  Prague (4-8 October).
Finally Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to announc e that FAO, in cooperation with WHO and
WTO, is conducting arrangements for the Conference on International Food Trade beyond 2000:
Science-Based Decisions, Harmonization, Equivale nce and Mutual Recognition to be held in
Melbourne Australia next week.  The Conference, as has been informed to this Committee before,will address food quality and safety issues and how they affect trade, health and development at both
domestic and international levels.  The Conference will be intergovernmental and should point the
way to improve international and domestic trade of good quality and safe food from the year 2000.
The agenda and papers to be discussed are available at FAO website.
__________