RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/M/25
21 November 2001
(01-5901)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9 OCTOBER 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Joshua Phoho Setipa (Lesotho)
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Tr ade held its twenty-sixth meeting on
9 October 2001.
2. The following agenda, contained in WTO/AIR/1628, was adopted:
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE
OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE
BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM) AND THE
GULF ORGANIZATION FOR INDUS TRIAL CONSULTI NG (GOIC)...........................2
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEM ENT ...................................................................................................................... ....2
III. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS (IEC , OIML AND WORL D BANK).................................9
IV. FOLLOW-UP OF THE MEETING ON PROCEDURES FOR INFORMATION
EXCHANG E ....................................................................................................................... ....12
V. FOLLOW-UP OF THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENTUNDER ARTICLE  15.4 .........................................................................................................14
VI. TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE ................................................................................................17
VII. REPORT (2001) OF THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO
TRADE .......................................................................................................................... ..........19
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................ ....19G/TBT/M/25
Page 2
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE BUREAU
INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM) AND THE GULF
ORGANIZATION FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSULTING (GOIC)
3. The Chairman said that further consultations among WTO Members on observer status in the
context of the General Council were still needed, and proposed to come back to these requests at the
next meeting.
4. The Committee took note of the statement made.
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
5. The representative of Canada drew attention to notifications G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 7, notified
by the European Communities (EC) on 30 August 2001, regarding draft regulations on the traceability
and labelling of food and feed containing genetic ally modified organisms (GMOs).  His government
was reviewing the drafts from a stakeholder as well as legal perspectives, and would submit
comments to the EC.  He was particularly concerned about the lack of scientific basis of the
regulations as well as their discrimination against imported products based on methods of production
(i.e. biotechnology) rather than on products' characteristics and risks.  He noted that the regulationswould require the traceability and labelling of highly processed products such as oils derived from
GMOs even though there was no detectable DNA protein.  He raised concerns about the inability to
verify labels through testing as well as to implement the regulation effectively.  He believed there
could be the risk of fraud and misrepresentati on of products.  He was also concerned about the
discriminatory nature of the regulation that labelling requirements would applied to food or feedwhich consisted of or were produced from GMOs, but not to food produced with genetically modified
enzymes (i.e. in the case of cheese).  He introduced an alternate approach in Canada (G/TBT/W/134
and Add.1) using voluntary labelling standards prepared by the Canadian General Standards Board
with input from producers, consumers, industry, the research community and government.
6. The representative of the United States (US) informed the Committee that intensive
discussions had been held between the US and the EC on EC draft regulations on GMOs.  Her
delegation had sought substantiation of the EC approach in light of the stated objectives and raised
questions about the feasibility of the implementation of the measures and their potential
trade-restrictiveness.  She believed the proposal lacked an effective verification mechanism. It called
for labelling on food, such as vegetable oil, irrespective of the detectability of GMOs in the final
products.  Such measures would open the way to fraud and could further undermine consumers'
confidence.  The draft was unclear with regard to how exporters could comply with the requirementsat a reasonable cost.  Her delegation would provide further comments to the EC, and she invited other
Members who wished to receive a copy of the comments to contact the US enquiry point.
7. The representative of Australia associated her delegation with the comments made by Canada
and the US.  Australia believed that any regulation on GM foods should be based on science and
should be enforceable as well as commercially feasible (i.e. not prohibitively costly).  She wasparticularly concerned about the enforceability of labelling requirements on highly refined oils and
sugars that contain non-detectable GMO DNA or protein as well as the discriminatory nature of the
proposal which exempted the labelling of product s produced with genetically modified enzymes
commonly used in European products.
8. The representative of the European Communitie s (EC) would convey the comments to his
authorities and verify the EC's commitments under the WTO and the TBT Agreement.  He informed
the Committee that the two draft regulations would be adopted through a co-decision mechanism withG/TBT/M/25
Page 3
two readings at the Parliament and two discussions in  the Council.  At present, it was the early stage
of the process, and the notified drafts would probably be modified before they were adopted.
9. The representative of Canada reiterated his delegation's concerns over the lack of a scientific
basis for the EC draft Di rectives on waste from electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) and the
restriction on the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (ROHS).The same applied to another draft Directive concerning a ban on the use of cadmium batteries.  This
draft, if adopted, could create unnecessary barriers to trade for many electronic products relying on
nickel-cadmium batteries as a power source.  He was particularly concerned about the lack of
transparency in the development of the proposed ban.  He requested the EC to make available to the
public its rationale for the ban, including the scientific evidence.  In Canada's view, risk management
strategies must be based on comprehensive and scientifically sound assessment of risks posed to
humans and the environment.  He called on the EC to work closely with stakeholders and to examinealternatives to a ban (e.g. recycling) that would achieve the same environmental and health objectives
while being less trade restrictive.
10. The representatives of Japan and Korea
 shared the concerns expressed by Canada.  Korea had
great interests in the sector of electronic and electrical products, and requested the EC to provide
detailed information on the scope and development of the draft Directives.
11. The representative of Australia reiterated her delegation's concerns about the EC draft WEEE
and ROHS Directives with respect to their contents as well as transparency procedures (i.e. to notify
and provide opportunity for comments).  She recalled that in June 2001, Australia had joined the US,
Canada and a number of other Members to make representations to the EC in Brussels as well as in
other capitals of its Member States expressing concerns and seeking the EC's cooperation to ensurethat the provisions of the draft legislations did not adversely affect trade.
12. The representative of the United States reiterated her delegation's concerns with regard to the
EC proposed Directives.
13. The representative of the European Commun ities, referring to the draft legislation on
batteries, informed the Committee that the draft was at present being discussed in the Commission,
and no draft text had been finalized for a proposal.  Concerning the WEEE and the ROHS, the draft
texts of the proposals had been made for the consideration of the Parliament and the Council.  The
second reading of the draft would take place in the autumn, when a number of modifications were
expected to be proposed and discussed.  The text would then be discussed again in the Council, and
perhaps further changes would be made.  He would convey the comments made to his authorities.  He
recalled that experts from his capital had been in the Committee to answer relevant questions and had
made available the references of the scientific survey made.  If the scientific information providedwas not sufficient, the EC was willing to provide further information.
14. The representative of the United States recalled that on 15 November 2000, her delegation
had circulated a communication which raised concerns about Protocols to the Europe Agreements on
Conformity Assessment (PECAs).  She noted that the European Union (EU) had concluded PECAs
with Hungary, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania, and that negotiations with other
EU candidate countries were under way.  She was concerned that the harmonization of regulatory
requirements in EU accession countries would result in unjustifiable discrimination or unnecessary
obstacles to international trade.  She noted that these agreements included a provision on rules of
origin whereby products must be of EU origin to qualify for PECA benefits.  Products of non-EU
origin complied with applicable EU requirements could be subject to redundant, time consuming andcostly testing before entering PECA country markets.  She saw no justification for additional tests
when a product had already been issued a CE mark from an approved laboratory in conformance with
EU requirements.  She believed the PECA's rule of origin established a two-tiered CE mark, i.e. with
non-EU origin products receiving an unwarranted "second-class" mark.  She requested answers fromG/TBT/M/25
Page 4
the EC and its PECAs partner on the purpose of the "origin" provision in the PECAs, if it was not
intended to result in discrimination against non-PE CA party products.  If it was the case, how did the
EC justify discriminating between like products on the basis of their origin?
15. In her view, this origin provision raised questions about the WTO compatibility of these
agreements.  The provision was contrary to the concept of mutual recognition and the principles of the
US-EU Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA).  Sh e would expect that US products (in sectors
covered by both the PECAs and the US-EU MRA) carry ing a CE mark from an approved laboratory,
whether issued in the US or EU, would be accep ted in PECA countries without further conformity
assessment.  She called upon the EU and its PECA part ners to notify these agreements, and requested
the EU to work with candidate countries to remove the PECA origin provision to ensure that U.S. and
other non-EU products did not fa ce discriminatory treatment.
16. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with the US statement.  He added that
the introduction of rules of origin in conformity assessment agreements negated some of the benefits
under the Canada-EC MRA, and appeared to be a step backwards from the concept of the
EU Common Market.  He expected the access for Canadian products gained under the Canada-ECMRA to be extended to the EU applicant countrie s.  He found no logical rationale for additional
testing requirements.  There were no safety or technical reasons to deny access of Canadian products
to the expanded territory of the EU, since those products had been tested and accepted by
EU authorities.
17. The representative of Korea shared concerns expressed about the PECAs.  He was confused
by the system introduced by the EU and its applicant countries, and sought further information.  He
believed there was a need for multilateral discussions and to clarify the situation.  He opposed the
introduction of rules of origin as barriers to trade.  Rules of origin should be used only to decide the
origin of a specific product.
18. The representative of the European Communities confirmed that the EC had concluded
MRAs with Hungary as well as the Czech republic, and was close to conclusion with Latvia and
Lithuania.  Negotiations were underway with th e third Baltic State and some other applicant
countries.  There was provision on rules of origin in those agreements applied to products subject to
third party certifications.  However, most other products would be accepted with the CE mark affixed
on them.  He reiterated that the overall result of those agreements could enhance trade, and did notfind the rules of origin a step backwards.  He ex plained that the PECAs were interim agreements that
probably would last for two or three years.  They were needed to create certain conditions for the
regional integration process.  The rules of origin would be repealed on the day of enlargement of the
EU.  Notifications of those agreements had been pr epared and would be circulated after verifying with
partner countries.  He was willing to provide detailed information to Korea and to submit written
submissions, if needed.
19. The representative of Canada recalled that in previous meetings, his delegation had raised
concerns about the import ban of New Zealand on trout.  Canada had raised the issue bilaterally with
New Zealand several times since the ban was first introduced in December 1998 as an interim
measure scheduled to expire in July 2000.  In June 2000, the measure had been extended to
April 2001, in April to July 2001, and in July to November 2001.  With the extensions, this temporary
ban would have been in place for almost three year s.  He understood that the New Zealand authorities
described the ban as a conservation measure, and would announce further extension for another
three years.  He drew attention to Article 2.5 of the Agreement which stated that "a Member
preparing, adopting or applying a technical regulation which may have significant effect on the trade
of other Members shall, upon the request of another Member, explain the justification for that
technical regulation…"  Given that New Zealand had failed to provide such justification and noexplanation had been provided on why a ban on imports was necessary, he considered the banG/TBT/M/25
Page 5
inconsistent with its WTO obligations.  He requested New Zealand to fulfil its obligations and not to
pursue the ban.
20. The representative of New Zealand would convey the concerns to her authorities.  She
confirmed that the import ban on trout had been extended in July 2001 to 7 November 2001 in order
to allow further consideration of the conservation of trout under a non-commercial speciesamendment Bill.  The Trout Bill had raised complex and politically sensitive issues in New Zealand
and additional time was needed to address them.  Her government was committed to take decisions
before 7 November, and the New Zealand Cabinet was due to consider these issues.  No
announcement had been made on the outcome of those considerations.  She reiterated that the key
objective of the Bill was to protect the cultural recreation and values of the trout resource based on its
historical usage as a sport.  New Zealand was fully aware of its international obligations.  Since there
was no commercial market for trout and as trout was not a traded good in New Zealand, there couldbe no discrimination against the Canadian products.
21. The representative of the United States drew attention to notification G/TBT/N/EEC/2 made
by the EC (on 6 February 2001) concerning a draft regulation relating to import requirements and
certification of organic products.  Her delegation had provided comments on 18 July to the EC and
subsequently had been informed that due to proced ural constraints, the comments would not be taken
into account.  She understood that the regulation would be adopted or had been adopted in September,
and that the new rules would come into force at the beginning of July 2002.  Her concerns related to
the new certification requirements for countries which did not have an equivalency agreement with
the EU.  Their products would have to be approved by competent authorities of individual Member
States.  Each Member State could decide which border authorities be assigned this task.  However, inthe Member States, there was no procedure established for border authorities to communicate with the
competent authorities that issued the import authorization.  She was concerned about the potential
delays and the unclear procedures that would be implemented, though the EC had responded that its
Member States would inform it on how the new regulations were to be implemented.  In view that the
regulations were to be implemented in July 2002, sh e requested the EC to provide clear information
on the procedures in Member States.
22. Her delegation had requested the EC for information on the criteria used to establish
equivalency agreements for the access of organic products to the EU market.  She understood that
currently, Switzerland, Australia, Argentina, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Israel had been listed
as countries being recognized as equivalent.  On 30 July, the US Enquiry Point had requested enquiry
points of those countries as well as that of the EC for information on the relevant process, criteria and
how these countries had been recognized as equivalent.  Up to the present, responses had beenreceived only from Switzerland and Australia.  She requested the others to provide information and
that those equivalency agreements be notified under Article 10.7 to the Committee.
23. The representative of the European Communities promised to convey the US comments to his
experts in capital and would provide additional in formation before the next meeting, if needed.
24. The representative of Korea raised concerns about the Japanese Enactment of the Cabinet
Order and the Ministerial Ordinance of Law for Promotion of Effective Use of Resources.  He
believed the regulations adversely impacted on trade of small and medium sized producers which
constituted the majority of Korean exports to Japan.  The recycling system provisions in these
regulations discriminated against foreign products by imposing higher recycling costs on them than
Japanese ones.  Furthermore, the regulations did not differentiate the recycling cost in light of the sizeof the product.  He sought clarity on that, and requested for consultation with the Japanese authorities.
25. The representative of Japan believed that the Japanese regulations on recycling of electrical
products was non-discriminatory and that considerations had been made regarding small and medium
sized firms.  He would  convey the concerns raised back to his capital.G/TBT/M/25
Page 6
26. The representative of the United States recalled that in October 1999, her delegation had
raised concerns about the EU Regulation 881/98 on "Traditional Expressions" (G/TBT/W/119).  At
that meeting (G/TBT/M/17), Argentina, Australia,  Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand and Uruguay
had spoken in support of the US.  In its response, the EC had asserted that the measure was necessary
to "avoid misleading consumers and unfair competition" and that the measure would not have asignificant impact on trade and therefore had not been notified.  The EC had informed the Committee
that it had proposed to postpone application of the regulation until August 2000 "in order to bring all
wine legislation in line with the new EC Common Market organization for wines which enter into
force on that day".  Ultimately, no implementation date had been set and it appeared that the EC had
decided to abandon its efforts to protect "traditional expressions".  Due to the objections of the US
and other EC wine trading partners (e.g. Australi a, Canada and South Africa), the EC had twice
postponed the implementation of EC Regulation 881/98.  To her regret, the regulation was at presentreconsidered as part of another draft regula tion (EC) No. 1493/1999 on the Common Organization of
the Market in Wine.  The draft required the protection of enumerated "traditional expressions".  It
restricted import of wines with labels bearing descriptive or generic matter, if considered as
"traditional expressions" by the EC.  Most of those terms, in her view, were adjectives used with
certain other terms to identify attributes such as the colour or the age of wines (e.g. "vintage" and
"ruby").  They had no specific connection with a geographical source or a given class of goods.  She
believed the prohibition of their use in connection with imported goods could constitute unnecessary
obstacles to trade and contribute to consumer deception.
27. In addition to "traditional expressions", the new 1493/99 draft included an article to reserve
certain types of bottles exclusively for EU use.  Sh e believed that to prohibit others from using certain
containers raised the same trade-barrier issues as "traditional expressions".  It provided special
favourable treatment to products of European origin and raised questions of creating unnecessary
obstacles to trade.  She believed the EC proposal might violate GATT 1994 Article III
(National treatment) or Article XI (Import Restrictions), and no reason had been provided for
exceptions which would justify GATT inconsistencies.  The proposal might also violate the nationaltreatment requirement of the TBT Agreement, as well as Article 2.2 requiring that technical
regulations "shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective".  It
appeared to be an attempt to gain a competitive advantage for EC-produced wines and spirits by
imposing an unnecessary restriction on trade of imported ones.  There was no factual basis to assert
that the use of certain descriptive or generic term s identified by the EC would deceive or confuse
consumers.  Even if the potential for consumer confusion existed, the objective could be achieved in a
less-trade-restrictive manner, e.g. by using country-of-origin requirements.  She noted that the EU'sdefinition of labelling appeared to cover packaging as well.  In her view, this draft regulation should
have been notified (as foreseen under the Agreem ent) so that interested Members could provide
comments for the consideration of the EC before its final adoption.  She sought information on the
status of the draft and on EC's plans to submit the notification to the Committee.
28. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with the comments made by the US.
29. The representative of Australia shared the concerns raised by the US, and believed that the
EC proposal to protect traditional expressions had significant impact on trade.  It restricted the ability
of wine producers from other countries to use common descriptive words in the presentation of wine
products and posed restrictions on the use of certain bottle shapes.  She asked if such measures were
the least trade-restrictive means to achieve the objective of preventing consumers from deception.She also raised concerns about the potential impact of seeking exclusive rights to use certain terms,
including the impact on other product sectors, such as cheese and other food products.  She agreed
that the proposed EC regulation should be notified to the Committee to allow comments from
interested Members before it was adopted.
30. The representative of Chile said that wine export was important for Chile, and supported the
comments made by the US, Canada and Australia.G/TBT/M/25
Page 7
31. The representative of New Zealand shared the concerns raised by the US, Canada, Australia
and Chile.  She recalled that her delegation had expressed concerns on the draft EC regulation
(881/98).  She noted that the new draft  1493/99 incorporated provisions belonging to the earlier draft.
Therefore, her delegation's concerns remained.  She believed the prohibition of use by imported wine
products of certain descriptive and genetic terms (which were not geographical specific) went beyondcurrent intellectual property protections provided in the TRIPs Agreement (i.e. geographical
indications).  She could not understand why certain words, which were not geographical or in some
cases were not product specific in nature, should be for the exclusive use of European producers.  She
questioned how necessary the proposed draft regulation was in order to avoid deception of consumers.
She believed that there were other less trade-restrictive means available for fulfilling this objective.
She also raised concern on the proposal to reserve certain bottle shapes for restricted EC use.  She
believed that legitimate intellectual property interests in this area were already well covered byexisting forms of intellectual property right protection (e.g. trade marks and passing off).  She
questioned the necessity of this potentially trade restrictive proposal.
32. The representatives of Argentina and Uruguay
 shared the concerns expressed by the previous
speakers, and requested the notification of the draft regulation 1493/99, so that the text could be
studied and comments made.
33. The representative of the European Communities explained that it was not possible to notify
the proposal at the moment, since the proposal was under discussion within the Commission as well
as between Member states at the expert level, and no draft text had been prepared.  He assured the
Committee that it would be notified when a formal draft text exist, in time before it was adopted.
34. The representative of Canada raised concerns about the Chilean regulation on a labelling
system for transgenic foods notified on 15 June 2001 (G/TBT/N/CHL/18).  His authorities had been
in contact with Chilean officials.  He reiterated hi s concerns with this type of mandatory labelling
requirement, including the need for scientific just ification, the practicability of the measures, their
enforceability and the question of creating unnecessary barriers to trade.
35. The representative of Chile took note of the concerns made by Canada and would transmit
them to his authorities.  She informed the Committ ee that since the issuance of the notification, Chile
had received comments from one Member.  This measure would come into effect one year after its
publication in the Official Journal.
36. The representative of the United States raised concerns about the Brazilian decree published
on 19 July 2001, establishing labelling disciplines at a 4 per cent tolerance level for food products
containing GMOs.  It had not been notified to th e Committee, and she sought clarification on whether
it was a final decree.  She indicated her delegation's intention to update document G/TBT/W/115which compiled all GMOs labelling notifications under the SPS and TBT Agreements.
37. The representative of Brazil informed the Committee that the draft decree was at the
beginning of a public consultations process.  Brazil would notify it as soon as possible.
38. The representative of Switzerland sought clarification on notification G/TBT/10.7/N/33
regarding an MRA reached between Colombia and Bolivia, Equator, Peru as well as Venezuela on
technical regulations and conformity assessment.  She requested information on its criteria, the bodies
involved and how it applied to non-Members (e.g. if certificates from third countries were accepted).
39. The representative of Colombia would contact his authorities and reply to Switzerland.
40. The representative of the United States, referrin g to the question raised by the EC at the last
meeting on a US proposal on textile fibre products (G/TBT/Notif.00/580), informed the Committee
that a final decision on that proposal had not been reached.  The EC comments would be taken intoG/TBT/M/25
Page 8
account, and once the final rule was adopted, a copy of the text, including the response to the
EU comments would be provided to the EC.
41. She recalled that at the previous meeting, her delegation had expressed concerns on the lack
of notification of a EC Proposed Directive on measuring instruments.  She welcomed the notification
made subsequently (G/TBT/N/EEC/5).  Her delegation had provided comments on that draft.
42. She recalled that at the March 2001 meeting, she had raised concerns about the Indian
mandatory labelling requirements on pre-packaged retail goods and the revisions of the Indian 1955
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.  She regretted that no response had been received and no
relevant notifications had been made.  She reiterated her concerns and sought responses from India.
43. The representative of the European Communities associated his delegation with the
US concerns on the new Indian mandatory certification and registration requirements for products,
including steel and steel products.  He sought cl arification on the following:  (i) the objective of
the regulations;  (ii) the relevant role of the Bur eau of Indian Standards (BIS), the justification of
a requirement to register with BIS and the registration fees;  (iii) whether relevant internationalstandards, guides or recommendations have been considered;  (iv) whether India has considered
accepting existing international or national certification that are equivalent;  (v) whether otherless burdensome and trade-restrictive means have been considered;  and (vi) when the new
regulations would be notified to the WTO.
44. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with the comments made by the US
and EC.  He sought replies from India on the questions posed by the EC.
45. The representative of Australia supported the view that India should observe the transparency
requirements of the Agreement (e.g. to notify and provide opportunities for comments).
46. The representative of Japan supported the comments made by US, EC, Canada and Australia.
He expressed concerns on the mandatory certification requirements with the Bureau of Indian
Standards for such a broad range of products as well as the mandatory labelling requirements for all
packaged imports.  He noted that the regulations had entered into force since 2 January 2001.
However, the compliance procedures were not clear nor transparent, and had not been notified.  He
requested India to provide an explanation on the necessity of the regulations and its compliance with
the TBT Agreement as well as information on the compliance procedures.
47. The representative of Switzerland sought clarification on two notifications made by Thailand
(G/TBT/N/THA/42 and 43) related to mandatory standards prepared by the Thai Industrial Standards
Institute.  She sought clarification on why Thailand converted voluntary standards into mandatory.
48. The representative of Thailand would convey the question to her authorities and reply to the
Swiss delegation as soon as possible.
49. The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting, a question had been raised by the
representative of the EC on the interpretation of the transparency provisions under Article 2.9 and
Annex 3 of the Agreement concerning mandatory technical regulations and voluntary standards.  He
invited Members to share views on that.
50. The representative of the United States recalled that the question was posed by the EC in
response to the notification made by Belgium on the draft law related to social responsibility.  The EC
explained that the law was a proposal for voluntary labelling and should not be notified underArticle 2.9 of the Agreement as a mandatory regulation.  She suggested that the EC could either
withdraw the notification (as her delegation had done for one of the US notifications), or to provide
information to the Committee by submitting a work ing document.  She noted that there were noG/TBT/M/25
Page 9
procedures for withdrawing a notification.  However, she did not think it was necessary for the
Committee to agree on developing such procedures.
51. The representative of Canada supported the US  view.  He thought it was useful for Members
to notify more than less, so as to provide other Members opportunities for comments, disregarding
their voluntary nature.  He welcomed the notification made by Belgium, though he was not clearabout the voluntary nature of the draft law as a whole.
52. The representative of the European Communitie s confirmed that the purpose of notification
procedures was to provide information to other Me mbers.  He believed that the Belgium draft law
could have been notified as a voluntary standard under Annex 3 of the Agreement.  However, it was
difficult for the Belgian Parliament to consider itself as a standardizing body and to follow the
notification procedures under Annex 3 (to transmit in advance a work programme to the
ISOIEC Information Centre).  For that, Belgium had been faced with two procedures which did notexactly fit.  He found it difficult to withdraw the notification made under Article 2.9, because the
procedures under Annex 3 would then have to be chosen.  He informed the Committee that the text of
the draft law was under debate in Belgium taking into account the comments made by Members.
53. The representative of Malaysia appreciated the information transmitted by the EC and the
notification made.  She believed a labelling scheme was an TBT issue, disregard its voluntary nature.
54. The Committee took note of the statements made.
III. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS (IEC, OIML AND WORLD BANK)
55. The Chairman recalled that at the Second Triennial Review, the Committee had agreed to
invite its observers to provide regular updates on their activities and the ways they sought to ensure
effective participation of Members, particularly developing country Members, in their activities.
56. The representative of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) said that the IEC
was founded in 1906 when the world needed standardization in the area of electrification.  It was
comprised of 61 national committees, representing electrotechnical interests in each country (e.g.
government, industry, consumers, testing laboratories and academia).  It prepared globally recognized
standards in the fields of electricity, electronics and associated technologies driven by market needs.IEC standards could be used as the basis for regulations, when needed, and as voluntary standards by
industry.  New deliverables (e.g. pre-standards,  publicly available specifications and industry
technical agreements) were developed recently, to respond to the needs of fast evolving technology
and hi-tech products.  IEC also provided conformity assessment-related services (based on peer
assessment) in areas such as household electrical goods and explosives.  These schemes were open to
non-members.  Lately, IEC had adopted the approach of conducting its works (i.e. consolidation of
comments, voting procedures and correspondence) electronically.  He believed the use of IT tools(e.g. web site, electronic library, web store, online standards, Internet meetings and discussions) could
be further stretched to facilitate and shorten standard development processes, to facilitate
consultations and bringing together new ideas.
57. The IEC training programme covered issues such as the use of IT tools, participation in the
standardization work and the use of IEC standards.  In the last three years, the programme hadcovered 19 countries and provided workshops for around 500 experts from over 40 countries.  Africa,
the Far East and Latin America had been targeted for the purpose of promoting their participation in
IEC work.  An IEC Asia-Pacific Regional Centre (IEC-APRC) had been established to promote
awareness of IEC standards and enhance participation in the region.  The Centre would serve as a
focal point for government and industry to obtain and exchange information, as well as a focal point
for networking, consulting and better influencing IEC work.  A web site would be dedicated for a
Discussion Forum aimed at identifying regional needs.  The result of this Centre would be evaluatedG/TBT/M/25
Page 10
at the end of year 2002.  In light of that, IEC would consider whether to create similar centre in other
regions.
58. IEC was aiming at bringing in as many non-member countries to participate in its work as
possible, taking into account that certain countries might not have sufficient funds to participate as
full IEC Members.  An IEC Affiliate Country Prog ramme was launched in June 2001.  Fifty countries
had been invited and up until the present, 32 countries had accepted to participate.  The Programme
aimed at providing affiliate members with standards (free of charge) for their adoption, and
establishing an electronic mechanism for them to involve in IEC work according to their needs.
These countries could trace existing standards and technical work of relevance, have access to
working documents and drafts, as well as comment on selected technical committees' work where
there was an interest.  They could participate in the IEC conformity assessment schemes and would
have the possibility to be matched for "twinning" experience with IEC members.  An AffiliateCountry Forum would be created, aimed at identi fying works relevant to and needed by newly
industrializing nations.  A web site would be cr eated to promote common positions, discussions and
exchange of information among affiliate members.  A leader of the Forum would be elected
representing affiliate members at IEC management meetings.  The Forum Secretariat would be based
in the IEC Central Office to support the work of the Forum.  He stressed the importance of raisingawareness and to participate in international standardization work, if identified as of interest, whether
or not actually participating at meetings.  Regional cooperation could contribute.  He invited
developing countries to fully participate and benefit from the IEC Affiliate Country Programme.
59. The representative of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) said that
OIML was an intergovernmental organization established in 1955, aimed at developing mutual
confidence among nations on legal metrology services, harmonizing regulations and developing
guidance documents in the field of legal metrology.  There were 111 OIML international
recommendations to be used by its Members as far as possible, 26 international documents of an
informative nature and 20 vocabularies and guides.  Almost half of its 57 Members states and more
than 30 of its 52  corresponding members were from developing countries.  He emphasized the
importance of correct measurement in society (for areas such as: imported products, retail trade,
utilities, pre-packaged products, medical analysis, the environment and safety).  This related to legal
metrology whereby regulations were developed to ensure an appropriate level of credibility and
confidence in measurement results.
60. The OIML Development Council met every year to discuss development matters, to identify
fields of special concern to developing countries and possible technical assistance activities and
training programmes provided by OIML and other or ganizations.  Its object was to provide means and
recommendations for the development of mutual info rmation and equipment.  Important activities of
the Council included working groups (on training, information and equipment), participation in
technical committees of particular relevance to developing countries, a database of training courses, a
database of experts for technical assistance, as well as liaisons with other organizations, such as the
ISO, WTO and UNIDO.  Its web site was ht tp://www.oiml.org/dev_council/index_english.htm.
Within its limited budget, the OIML supported the participation of a number of developing countries
in meetings each year.
61. Most of the technical work of OIML was carried out by correspondence.  Electronic means
were used to facilitate its work.  Documents were available for its members as well as corresponding
members on the web site and specific web pages and forums had been established to facilitatediscussions in technical committees.  The possibility of using web conferencing was under
consideration to allow a lowering of the cost of participation.  However, a number of developing
countries still encountered difficulties in accessing electronic mail and Internet due to the absence of
efficient telephone connections, and for this, in the coming years, paper copies of documents and
postal exchange would remain necessary.  Regional offices of legal metrology in the Asia Pacificregion and the Americas were established to facilitate discussions and work in the regions.G/TBT/M/25
Page 11
62. The representative of the World Bank said that the Bank mission was focused on poverty
reduction and economic development as well as loans.  Loan guarantees and technical assistance were
prioritised to assist least-developed countries (LDCs) as well as to middle-income developing
countries.  Lendings of the Bank were US$28.9 billion in 1999, US$15.2 billion in 2000 and
US$17.3 billion in 2001 with a peak in 1999 due to the Asian financial crisis.  The Bank's lendingrelated to standards was around US$ 100 million over the last three years ($150 million in 1999 -
direct lending to Turkey, Ghana and Cape Verde;  $100 million in 2000 to Poland, Russia and
Mozambique;  and $83.3 million in 2000 to Guatemala and Nicaragua).  Plans had been made for a
loan to Panama in 2002 which would include components related to standards.  The Bank also
provided technical assistance and research, including the following:  (i) a project through funding of
the US Agency for International Development in five sub-Saharan Africa countries;  (ii) training
modules on standards and survey to gather information on needs assessment;  and (iii) a project incooperation with the government of Canada on trade facilitation in APEC involving standards and
regulations.
63. The Integrated Framework (IF) for trade-related technical assistance in LDCs was an
inter-agency effort, including the Bank and the WTO.  The first three pilot projects (in Cambodia,
Madagascar and Mauritania) were in their final stage of completion.  Discussions were held to lookinto the possibility of extending it to Bangladesh, Burundi, Guinea, Lesotho, Nepal and Senegal.
Component of the IF related to technical assistance needs in the area of standards which provided an
example of the importance of inter-agency coordination in the delivery of technical assistance.  It
showed that demand driven, high-level ownership, tailored assistance as well as long term
coordination were among the elements of success.  The work of bilateral donors, i.e. developedcountries' trade-related technical assistance in this area was also important.
64. The representative of Panama welcomed the information provided by the Work Bank and
sought further information on the Bank's programme in Panama.
65. The representative of the World Bank clarified that the programme was a three-year project
under preparation, with the possibility of implementation at the beginning of year 2002.
66. The representative of Japan thanked IEC, OIML and the World Bank for their presentations.
He welcomed the efforts of the IEC and OIML to undertake their standardization activities taking into
account the importance of transparency, openness and market relevancy.  He appreciated the efforts
made by IEC to expand its affiliate members and assist developing countries participation in the
international standardization activities.  He in formed the Committee that JISC (Japan National
Standardization Body) had endorsed its standardization strategy and would support IEC's efforts to
assist developing countries' participation, particularly with regard to the Asia-Pacific Regional Centre.
67. The representative of Egypt sought clarification on whether the IEC would expand the
number of countries to be covered under its affiliate country programme.
68. The representative of the IEC confirmed that the programme was opened to countries that had
an interest in IEC's work and IEC planned to expand the coverage of the programme to more
countries.
69. The representative of Guatemala sought clarification on whether the World Bank's
programme in Guatemala related to the UNIDO project in Central America.
70. The Chairman asked if the World Bank had developed tool kits while providing assistance to
set up an enquiry point in Russia, or if the experience had been used as a basis for modelling an
assistance package to assist other countries, such as within the IF.G/TBT/M/25
Page 12
71. The representative of the World Bank, referring to the question of Guatemala, confirmed that
the Bank was actively consulting with other organizations such as the UNIDO and Inter-American
Development Bank to ensure better coordination and cooperation in technical assistance activities.
He also gave an example of consultations with the Asian Development Bank for activities in Asia.
Concerning the Chair's question, he said that the Bank had learned a great deal through its lendingactivities to Russia and discussions had been held on providing assistance to China.  Tool kits and
learning modules were being developed.  With respect to the IF, he expected that more inter-agency
discussions, in particular in the area of standards, would be held next year.
72. The representative of the European Communities appreciated the efforts of IEC and ISO on
the development of international standards, addressing issues such as market needs and effective
participation.  He noted the reliance of IEC on IT facilities in its activities, and asked if the IEC
provided support to set up these facilities in its Affiliate Members.
73. The representative of the IEC confirmed that the IEC addressed the hardware, software and
training issues regarding IT facilities in developing country Members, and some countries had
benefited from that.  He believed that the main issue was the technical training needed for those
countries to use the facilities for the purpose of using and developing standards as well as to
communicate with other countries having similar problems.
74. The Committee took note of the statements made.
IV. FOLLOW-UP OF THE MEETING ON PROCEDURES FOR INFORMATION
EXCHANGE
75. The Chairman recalled that at the Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange held on
28 June 2001, a number of proposals had been made.  A number of delegations had made comments
on those proposals at the last meeting (G/TBT/M/24).  He refered to the proposal on the creation of a
central depository of notifications on the WTO web site and invited further comments.
76. The representative of Chile supported that proposal, and believed that it would facilitate the
process and reduce the time needed for disseminating notifications.
77. The representative of Australia agreed in principal with the proposal.  However, she felt that
more clarification on the operation of such a system would be needed, particularly because it could
have implications on other WTO notifications.  Considerations should be taken into account of the
restrictiveness to access such a depository (since many  national bodies were involved in notifications,
including enquiry points) and on how this related to the Secretariat's document distribution process.
To post notifications on the WTO web site would not reduce the time needed for translation.  This
proposed system should not weaken the existing notification procedures on draft regulations and
standards.
78. The representative of Malaysia shared the comments made by Australia.  She sought
clarification on the difference between this proposed system and the existing WTO Central Registry
for Notifications (CRN) and how this related to filling up notification forms on the Internet, or if the
proposal contained two parts, i.e. filling in notification forms and a central depository.
79. The representative of Canada recalled that the proposal had been made by his delegation.  He
suggested that it would be useful to demonstrate to relevant WTO divisions and the Committee a
similar approach developed by the Canadian government whereby business could be done online.
80. The Chairman suggested that the representative of Canada contacted relevant WTO technical
divisions to study the proposal before the next meeting, so that the Committee could be advised on
how practical this approach could be and on its implications on the work of other WTO divisions.  HeG/TBT/M/25
Page 13
invited Members to consider the proposal to request the Secretariat to prepare a booklet on
transparency provisions of the Agreement along the lines of the one that had been developed under
the SPS Agreement.
81. The representative of Australia supported the proposal.
82. The representative of the United States suggested that, if the proposal was to be agreed by the
Committee, the booklet should simply be comprised of  the relevant provisions of the Agreement and
the Committee's Decisions and Recommendations.  The draft booklet should be studied by the
Committee before its publication.
83. The representatives of Switzerland and New Zealand  supported the proposal.
84. The Chairman concluded that based on the comments made, the Secretariat was requested to
prepare a draft booklet on transparency provisions for the consideration of the Committee at its next
meeting.  He invited comments on the proposal to place the list of TBT enquiry points on linewhereby members could update it themselves.
85. The representative of Australia supported the proposal and found it useful.
86. The representative of Malaysia noted that this proposal was similar to the first one to the
extent that both involved computerization of the systems.
87. The Chairman suggested inviting experts from the relevant WTO divisions to provide
guidance to the Committee on these two proposals.  He invited reflection on the proposal on
languages to be used for requests and replies concerning enquiry points.  He noted that in some cases,
replies were provided in native languages which might not be understandable by demanders.  The
Committee might wish to consider how best to address this, i.e. to recommend replies to be made in
one of the WTO official languages.
88. The representative of Australia found that further reflection was needed on this proposal.  She
noted that while Members were required to submit documents in one of the three WTO languages,
explanations on draft regulations could be made in Members' national languages.  Translation could
impose cost and delays, and it might not be practicable or acceptable to require notifying Members to
provide translated material.
89. The representative of Japan believed this proposal needed further examination, in particular to
the extend that it did not require changes of Members' obligations under the Agreement.
90. The Chairman proposed to come back to this proposal at the next meeting.
91. The representative of Chile recalled at the Special Meeting, his delegation had proposed that
when a Member sent a notification to the WTO Secretariat, it could be sent at the same time to other
Members.  This would provide more time for other Members to study the notification.
92. The Chairman believed that, in principle, Members were free to do so, if they so wished.
However, not all Members had the necessary capacity or resources.
93. The representative of Canada believed that this could be done if a system was to be
established whereby Members filled out notifications online and instantly and automatically made
them available to a list of designations (e.g. nationa l enquiry points).  This was similar to the "export
alert system" in the Standards Council of Canada .  The limitation would be whether the necessary
electronic capacity was available.G/TBT/M/25
Page 14
94. The representative of Chile recalled his authorities' recent experience in receiving comments
on a Chilean notification.  The comments had been sent to Chile from different agencies of the same
Member.  He raised the following questions and concerns:  (i) if the replies to the comments were to
be sent centrally to the enquiry point, the embassy of that Member or to those different agencies
separately;  (ii) if answers were to be given to each of the questions raised or if a summary on themeasure would be sufficient;  (iii) in the case of Chile, if the comments made were not in Spanish, it
would require translations and would delay the replies.  He invited other Members to share their
experiences on how to handle the above situations (i.e. the internal coordination needed to reply to
comments on notifications).
95. The Chairman invited Members to reflect on the requests made by Chile.  The Committee
would come back to these questions at its next meeting.
96. The Committee took note of the statements made.
V. FOLLOW-UP OF THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.4
97. The representative of Switzerland drew attention to the Swiss paper on Marking and
Labelling Requirements (G/TBT/W/162), and reiterated her delegation's wish to continue the
discussion on the subject in a more structural way.
98. The representative of the European Communities found the informal discussion on labelling
held the day before useful.  He was encouraged that more Members were engaged in the discussion
and started to exchange experiences.  He felt that with the increase of trade impediment cases brought
to the attention of the Committee relating to labelling (as indicated in the US paper G/TBT/W/165),
the Agreement had not been able to resolve all those problems.  The Agreement might have preventedsome problems.  However, there was no guidance in it to allow removal of those trade barriers.  He
recalled that the EC had, in November 2000, inv ited Members to exchange information on problems
they encountered in labelling (G/TBT/W/150) and had proposed that the Committee examine the
ongoing work in other international organizations (e.g. Codex Alimentarius and ISO).  The EC would
continue to draw attention to a list of issues it considered were left open or unclear in the Agreement.He invited other Members to submit to the Committee their experience on labelling issues to provide
a basis for discussions.  He recalled the announcement of Canada on a submission.  He believed the
discussions in the Committee could guide legislators on what should be and should not be done when
preparing legislations concerning labelling.  He would not wish to leave these issues to the dispute
settlement mechanism, because this would require changes in legislations, if they were proven to be
violating the Agreement.  In addition, it did not ensure a sufficient predictability in this area and did
not allow for the consideration of political needs in developed and developing countries.
99. The representative of Australia welcomed the informal discussions on labelling.  However,
she reiterated her delegation's opposition to the Committee undertaking a formal work programme
aimed at clarifying the TBT rules on labelling or developing guidelines.  The debate on labelling in
the Committee so far had not revealed any substantive case for the need to examine the relevant
provisions.  She was cautious about agreeing to pr oceed with a formal work programme without any
clearly defined parameters.  She believed the provisions in the Agreement relating to labelling were
adequate to address various possibilities.  The Agreement provided scope for Members to apply
voluntary or mandatory labelling requirements for all product categories consistent to the Agreement
(i.e. national treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and least trade restrictive measures to meet
legitimate objectives).
100. The representative of the United States shared the Australian view that there had not been a
substantive case made which showed the need for new rules, guidelines or clarification of the
Agreement.  She reiterated the US view on the issue (G/TBT/W/165) that the TBT agreement wasG/TBT/M/25
Page 15
relevant to the issues of labelling and all provisions applied.  She believed the disciplines were
adequate, and that the problem had been a failure of  Members to comply with the rules.  She noted
that the various problems illustrated in the EC paper on labelling (G/TBT/W/150) reflected
complaints received by the EC concerning trade barriers arising from labelling requirements.  She
believed that more could be done domestically to ensure the knowledge of and adherence to thedisciplines of the Agreement in an effective and ongoing basis.  However, she did not see how much
of this could be accomplished through more discussions in the Committee.  She welcomed the Swiss
paper and the view that marking and labelling requirements were covered by the Agreement (i.e. in all
provisions regarding standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures).
However, she did not agree with a number of questions raised in the paper, and believed that neither
the paper nor the subsequent discussions had demonstrated the need for clarification of rules or the
development of guidelines.  She welcomed continued discussion on labelling.  She noted theextensive discussions of the Committee at each meeting under agenda item "Statements on
Implementation and administration of the Agreement" on specific alleged trade barriers relating to
labelling measures.
101. The representative of Canada agreed with the views of Australia and the US.  He believed that
it was important to have full debate on a number of issues in informal meetings, aimed at obtaining a
better understanding of the application of the Agreement to labelling issues.  He was not convinced
that there were a lot of issues left open by the Agreement, and believed that under the WTO rules
there was no absolute legal certainty.  Future discussions did not have to be limited to labelling, since
it was a subset of the issue of good regulatory practice.  He expected more structured and substantive
discussions at the next meetings, and indicated that a Canadian paper could be made ready in advanceof the meeting.
102. The representative of Mexico supported the US and Australian position, and was not
convinced of the need for developing guidelines.  He believed that the Agreement was clear and
applicable to labelling requirements as well as to the other matters under its limit.
103. The representative of Egypt associated himself with the views expressed by Australia, the US,
Canada and Mexico.  He was convinced that the Agreement was clear with respect to labelling and
there was no need for a structured work programme on the issue.  He could go along with the idea of
informal discussions.
104. The representative of New Zealand reiterated her delegation's view that labelling was well
covered by the provisions of the Agreement, and there was no need for its reopening.  She agreed with
Canada that there was a need for a full discussion on labelling issues.  It should be structured in such a
way that it did not prejudice its outcome.
105. The representative of Japan recognized the mounting importance of labelling requirements
responding to the interests of civil society (e.g. consumers' needs for product information).  He saw
the value of deepening the discussion on labelling in  the context of the Agreement, while taking into
account existing discussions in other organizations (e.g. ISO).
106. The representative of Chile shared the comments made by most previous speakers, in
particular the one made by Canada.  He looked forward to a more structured informal discussion and
to receiving the Canadian paper.
107. The representative of Guatemala supported the view that there was no need for a programme
of work on labelling, but agreed on a more structured informal discussion.
108. The representative of Canada drew attention to a Canadian paper (G/TBT/W167) "A Policy
Framework for Mutual Recognition Activity".  He  believed that the document, though developed
domestically, could provide the Committee with interesting concepts and considerations with respectG/TBT/M/25
Page 16
to MRAs.  He noted that significant domestic resources and implications were involved in full fledged
MRAs - whether they be multi- or single sector, legally binding or not binding, between one or more
countries.  They involved the interests of industry, standards developers, regulatory and trade
authorities, and in the case of Canada, federal as well as provincial regulatory authorities.
109. The representative of the United States welcomed the Canadian paper and believed that it
could contribute to the Committee's discussions in this area.  The US shared Canada's experiences.
She confirmed that the negotiation and implementation of MRAs could be resource intensive, and
they could be more complicated and costly if key stake holders (i.e. regulators and industry) did not
perceive benefits in the process.  She found MRAs had been successful in limited circumstances and
did not see them as desirable nor necessary for securing access to the US market.
110. The representative of the European Commun ities informed the Committee that the EC had
concluded, or was close to concluding, seven MRAs in the area of conformity assessment in more
than fifty sectors with trade partners.  There was no EC defined criteria for MRA negotiations.
Though MRAs had been perceived by a number of countries as a tool to resolve trade problems, there
were difficulties in their negotiations and implementation, especially if technical regulations or
standards were different in the two partners.  There was a need for specific mechanisms in terms of
confidence building.  The process could be sophisticated and lengthy, in particular if conformityassessment systems were different (i.e. the role of public authorities versus private assessment bodies,
the designation of conformity assessment bodies and the role of accreditation bodies).  However, if
the systems of two potential partners were well aligned, and there was political will, MRAs should not
be too difficult to negotiate (e.g. the MRA between  the EC and Switzerland).  He also had great
expectations that the MRA with Japan would work well.  The EC had developed a document on toolbox of instruments in order to facilitate trade in the area of standards and certification.  It could be
presented to the Committee at its next meeting.  He believed the instruments (including those which
could be used immediately and MRAs  which came at the end of the process, if necessary) could bring
trade benefits.
111. The representative of New Zealand thanked Canada for its paper on MRAs and thought that it
reflected her country's experience.  She confirmed the problems that could be encountered in MRAs
and the need for cost benefit analysis when considering their negotiations.  It was particularly relevant
at the moment, when the enthusiasm for bilateral negotiations on free trade agreements often
incorporated MRA elements.  She agreed that MRAs were not the only tool that regulators had in
their tool box. Equivalence would be another possible tool to be used, in particular in situations where
there were resource constraints for the negotiation of MRAs, or where there was no significant
difference in regulatory approaches needed to be overcome through negotiations.  She recalled theNew Zealand papers submitted to the Committee on good regulatory practice and the concept of
equivalence.  The point that her delegation had tried to convey was reflected in the Canadian
submission, i.e. where there was no particular area of trade interests and where trade volume was
small, the benefits of a MRA might not warrant the intensive negotiations required.
112. The representative of Japan welcomed the Canadian paper and the EC's views on MRAs.
Japan had negotiated two MRAs, i.e. with the EC  and Singapore.  He found that MRAs could be
resource intensive and the confidence building process could be difficult.
113. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to document G/TBT/W/170.
The paper was prepared by the EC as a result of Second Triennial Review in relation to the principles
on international standards development.  It explained the EC's policy in the field of internationalstandards and how the EC put the criteria agreed into its policy.
114. The Chairman thanked Members for their contributions and concluded that the Committee
would continue informal discussions on labelling in a more structured way at its next meeting.G/TBT/M/25
Page 17
115. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
116. The Chairman recalled that at the previous meeting, the Committee had held discussions on
the development of a demand-driven TBT-related Technical Cooperation Programme.  It had been
suggested that he consult with the Chairmen of  the General Council and the Committee on Trade and
Development to ensure coordination and avoid duplication of work in this area.  Subsequently, he had
met with the Chairman of the CTD and informed him of the ongoing work relating to technical
assistance in the Committee.  Following the re quest provided to the Committee by the General
Council relating to "implementation issues", and as a result of a request from the Chairman of the
General Council, he had presented a report to the General Council on 3 September 2001 (G/L/471).
In that report, he explained how the Committee, in the context of the Second Triennial Review,
examined the problems faced by developing countries in international standards and conformityassessment.  He also provided information on how  progress had been made with respect to the
Committee's effort in developing the Technical Cooperation Programme.  The Chairman of the
General Council was fully aware of the approach to technical assistance developed by the Committee.
117. He drew attention to paper JOB (01)/123, a draft questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat to
assist developing country Members to identify thei r technical assistance needs in the TBT area.  The
Committee had held informal discussions on the draft, and constructive comments had been made.
He invited delegations who wished to provide further comments on the draft to do so before
15 December 2001, so that a revision could be prepared for the consideration of the Committee at an
informal meeting he planned to hold at the beginning of 2002.  He drew attention to paper
JOB (01)/128 and Add.1, a compilation of submi ssions made by Members since 2001 providing
information on their technical assistance needs or assistance activities they provide.
118. The representative of the European Communities recognized that the survey was the first step
in developing the Technical Cooperation Programme.  He hoped that the questionnaire would be
finalized at the beginning of year 2002 and that the results of the survey would be available before
September 2002.  He proposed that in the mean time, the Committee should move forward with otherelements of the Programme (e.g. aspects contained in JOB (01)/128, the relevant papers contributed
by Brazil, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines) at the coming meetings, aiming at obtaining results
before the next triennial review. He drew atte ntion to a General Council document WT/GC/48, a
report of the Director-General on actions of a number of international organizations to increase
participation of developing countries in the work of relevant international standard setting
organizations.  He found the information useful and believed that it should be circulated as a
TBT paper.
119. The Chairman supported the view expressed by the EC that it was important to expedite the
process, i.e. to consider the draft questionnaire at the January 2002 informal meeting, to have the
revised draft adopted by March for the circulation to developing countries, and to start receiving
feedback by the June meeting.  It was also important to consider other elements of the Programme in
parallel to this process.
120. The representative of the United States supported the usefulness of first identifying technical
assistance needs by means of a survey, and at the same time, looking at the assistance activities that
had been provided bilaterally.  She informed the Committee that her delegation was preparing a paper
on the US assistance to developing and transition countries in the compliance with the Agreement.
The information might not be as detailed as some other submissions that referred to specific projects.She believed that with the information on the needs identified and assistance provided, the Committee
could evaluate and respond accordingly.G/TBT/M/25
Page 18
121. The representative of Canada emphasised the importance of the Programme to focus on trade-
related technical assistance with respect to the Agreement and needs identified by developing
countries themselves.  The Canadian TBT-related technical assistance activities relied on requests
made by developing countries to the Canadian International Development Agency.  It would be
difficult to provide assistance if planning authorities of developing countries did not make suchrequests.
122. The representative of Japan supported the Canadian view and pointed to document
G/TBT/W/160 – Japan's Experience on Technical Assistance in the Area of TBT.  He echoed that it
was important for developing countries to give high priority to TBT-related activities in their national
technical assistance requests, since most assistance programmes, in particular bilateral ones, were
demand driven.
123. The representative of Turkey noted that developing countries might encounter difficulties in
the formulation and application of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment
procedures.  Technical assistance in a wide range of areas (e.g. standardization, conformity
assessment and metrology) was needed, taking into account the dynamic and sophisticated nature of
technical regulations and standards.  He pointed to the lack of properly trained human resources in
some relevant public institutions of developing countries and the conformity assessment institutionsand quality infrastructures which needed to be established or strengthened (e.g. accreditation bodies).
Technical assistance programmes could not achieve results in isolation, and substantial input
(i.e. financial investment) was needed, since financial resources in most of developing countries were
limited.
124. The Chairman recalled that the Committee on Trade and Development had considered a new
strategy for WTO technical cooperation and capacity building activities.  One of the issues
highlighted was the need for coherence at the nationa l level in terms of needs identification to ensure
that requests made to the WTO were made in a more coordinated approach.  It was also important for
donors to ensure that their technical assistance programmes were developed in a comprehensive way.
He believed it important for developing and least developing country Members to complete thequestionnaire to be circulated so that they could identify and prioritise their needs.  The information
would assist the Committee to develop an effective and comprehensive technical cooperation
programme.
125. The representative of UNIDO drew attenti on to document G/TBT/W168, which summarised
UNIDO's efforts in technical assistance and capacity building in TBT areas.  He informed the
Committee that the EU/UEMOA and UNIDO initiative in accreditation, standardization and quality
promotion had been started.  It provided assistance to eight West African countries, most of themclassified as LDCs.  A regional workshop to identify and prioritise the needs to strengthen the
SADC regional structure in standardization, quality assurance, accreditation and metrology had been
held in Pretoria in August 2001.  A summary of the results would be available soon.  In Central
America, UNIDO was designing an integrated progra mme for the region with a view to eliminating
non-tariff trade barriers related to the TBT and SPS Agreements, and multilateral organizations wereinvited to participate in the programme.  A cooperation agreement between the ITC and UNIDO had
been signed for six joint activities in the field of facilitating access to markets.
126. The representative of the ISO reported that the cooperation of the ISO with WTO had been on
the agenda of the ISO General Assembly held in September 2001.  He noted that out of the
140 members of ISO, more than 100 were from developing countries and economies in transitionwhich did not have fully developed infrastructures in the area of standard related matter.  It called for
special attention within the ISO.  The General Assembly had noted the problems faced by developing
countries and requested the ISO to continue its efforts to assist them.  The ISO Committee on
developing countries matters (DEVCO) and the ISO Technical Management Board (responsible for
coordinating programmes of the ISO technical committees) had met in September, and the need for anG/TBT/M/25
Page 19
increased cooperation between the two ISO bodies had been recognised.  A task force on "Increasing
Participation of Developing Countries in ISO Work" had been established to develop a programme to
facilitate the active participation of developing countries in ISO technical work, and a survey on the
obstacles encountered by the developing countries would be carried out.  This would be followed by a
series of regional workshops to study the survey results and to draw recommendations for action byISO.  A close cooperation with the WTO on this was foreseen (e.g. in holding and financing the
workshops).  A joint DEVCO/CASCO group on strategies for conformity assessment had been
established, acting as a channel to provide information and feedback in this area.  At the DEVCO
meeting, a number of delegations had raised concerns about the difficulties in liasing with national
trade representatives to provide inputs on WTO issues.
127. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VII. REPORT (2001) OF THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE
128. The Chairman drew attention to document G/TBT/SPEC/19, the draft report of the
Committee (2001).  He informed the Committee that since no comments had been received on the
draft, the report as contained in G/TBT/SPEC/19 had been submitted to the Council for Trade in
Goods (G/L/487) at its meeting on 5 October 2001.
129. The Committee took note of the statement made.
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS
130. The representative of Canada requested information on the plan for meetings in 2002.
131. The Chairman informed the Committee that three meetings had been planned, for
14-15 March, 20-21 June and 2-3 October 2002.
__________