RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/M/32 
19 April 2004 
 (04-1740) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 23 MARCH 2004 
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Juan Antonio Dorantes Sánchez (Mexico)
 
  
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/2253, dated 23 February 2004.  
II. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
A. S
TATEMENT FROM MEMBERS UNDER ARTICLE 15.2 
2. In reiterating the importance of Members fulfilli ng their obligation in respect of Article 15.2 
of the TBT Agreement, the Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the recently submitted 
statements on implementation and administrati on from Papua New Guinea (G/TBT/2/Add.77) and 
El Salvador (G/TBT/2/Add.78).  He also noted that Indonesia had submitted a revision to their 
original Statement.  A full list of statements on implementation and administration of the Agreement had been circulated in document G/TBT/GEN/1.  On transparency, a recently updated list of Enquiry 
Points was contained in document G/TBT/ENQ/24.  The Chairman encouraged delegations to check 
the information contained in this document and le t the Secretariat know of any modifications that 
needed to be made.  
3. The representative of Chile
 referred to her country's Supplement to the Statement under 
Article 15.2 regarding Law No. 19.912.1  This Law, which ensured compliance with TBT notification 
procedures, formalized an existing mechanism that stipulated a time period of six months for the 
implementation of its provisions.  Throughout 200 3, the National Commission on Technical Barriers 
to Trade (chaired by the Ministry of Economy) ha d elaborated the implementation of the Law through 
a Decree which was currently ready for the President 's signature.  The scope of the Law was broader 
than that of notification procedures.  It est ablished principles of the TBT Agreement and good 
regulatory practices, such as the use of internationa l standards, non-discrimination, the avoidance of 
unnecessary barriers to trade and transparency.  It al so included a broad system of consultation of 
draft regulations with the community, and establis hed a time period of no less than 60 days for 
comments.  The same time period was stipulated for notifications made to the WTO.  The need to 
keep relevant information available to the public was also established (such as on the objective of the 
measure, alternatives considered , advantages and disadvantages). 
4. It was stressed that the Law was the result of a joint effort of various institutions.  Its 
elaboration had allowed Chile to enhance awaren ess among the various agencies of the government 
regarding the benefits of having clear and uniform rules on how technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures (CAPs) should be developed, adopted and applied.  In light of the Third 
Triennial Review, Chile wished to share their expe rience on such coordination, both in terms of the 
implementation of the TBT Agreement as well as in the context of good regulatory practices, 
transparency and technical co-operation.  
                                                      
1 G/TBT/2/Add.16/Suppl.2, dated 24 November 2003. G/TBT/M/32 
Page 2  
 
B. S
PECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
1. New Concerns 
(i) United States:  Measure on Refillable Lighters  
5. The representative of China  drew the Committee's attention to a US measure on refillable 
lighters.  The US Consumer Product Safety Commi ssion had made an announcement on its official 
website2 to the effect that, starting 1 March 2004, refilla ble lighters with an import value of US$2.25 
or less would be required to be child-resistant.  This was up from the original import value of US$2 or less, established in 1993.  The revised standard not only maintained the relationship between price and 
safety of the product as before, but also widened the scope of lighters covered by the regulation.  This 
did not comply with the WTO principle of "minimizing restrictions on trade", and the principles of 
"fair trade".  China therefore requested that the United States provide the scientific justification for 
setting a relationship between price and safety of light ers, and invited the United States to fulfill its 
obligation, under the TBT Agreement, to notify the measure. 
6. The representative of the United States
 noted that as her delegation had not been given 
advanced information on the matter, she was not in  a position to provide a substantive response.  
Nevertheless, the United States woul d look into the concerns raised. 
(ii) China:  Mandatory Chinese National Standards for Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) 
Authentication and Priva cy Infrastructure (WAPI)  
7. The representative of the United States  drew the Committee's attention to two Chinese 
technical regulations for wireless local area netw ork (WLAN) computing which had come into force 
on 1 December 2003 and which had been the subject of a number of bilateral exchanges with the 
government of China.  It was noted that these re gulations had been first approved by the Chinese 
government on 12 May 2003, but had not been public ly announced until 9 July 2003.  These had not 
been notified to WTO Members under the TBT Agreement and no opportunity for comment had been provided before being finalized.    Furthermore, it was the US understanding that as of 1 June 2004, 
any foreign manufacturer or exporter to China of  products containing WLAN technology would have 
to enter into co-production arrangements with a d esignated list of, currently, 24 Chinese companies in 
order to comply with the WAPI regulations and sell or use their products within China.     
8. The US concerns ranged from compelled investme nt and technology tr ansfer policies, to 
questions of unnecessary government interference in  the marketplace.  The Chinese government was 
the only government in the world mandating comp liance with a specific WLAN encryption standard 
for general consumer use.  Requirements for wirele ss LAN encryption had been otherwise left to the 
marketplace.  Moreover, the Chinese WAPI standa rds substantially differed from the widely-adopted 
international standard IEEE 802.11 in the area of  encryption techniques. The United States was 
therefore concerned that the mandatory imposition of  these standards was overly restrictive and would 
result in an unnecessary barrier to trade.  The re presentative of the United States invited China to 
notify its draft technical regulations.  China was furt her encouraged to participate in the revisions to 
the international standard IEEE 802.11, and to reconsider its policy of mandating a specific 
encryption standard for general consumer use.   
9. The representative of the European Communities
 shared the concerns raised by the US 
delegation, in particular with respect to the non-notification of these measures under the TBT 
Agreement. 
                                                      
2 Website address:  www.cpsc.gov  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 3 
 
 
10. The representative of Japan  was also concerned about the lack  of transparency and requested 
China to provide more information on these measures.   Japan was particularly interested to know 
whether China recognized the existence of relevant international standards on this issue.  Members 
had the obligation to notify regulations that were not  in conformity with international standards.  
11. The representative of Mexico  associated his delegation with the positions expressed by others 
and stated his concern about the non-compliance of  the Chinese measures with the TBT Agreement.   
12. The representative of China  informed the Committee that the two national standards at issue 
had been developed on the basis of ISO/IEEE.802.11, with a view to protect the information security 
for the State and consumers, and so as to protect  consumers' rights.  However, due to security 
technical flaws of the Wired Equivalent Privacy  (WEP) of ISO IEEE/802.11, WAPI was adopted as 
the security mechanism in Chinese WLAN standards.  Before its adoption, WAPI had been submitted 
to IEEE Registration Authority and had been assigned "0x88B4" as the WAPI EtherType Field 
Number.  Only two items in these standards,  namely frequency management and cryptogram 
management, were mandatory.  The representative of  China further noted that the programmes for 
developing these two standards and their working gro ups were open, transparent and public.  In July 
2003, the Chinese government had sponsored a m eeting to explain the two standards, and 
representatives of all interested circles, including US enterprises, had been invited to participate.  In 
addition, the Chinese authorities had held several bilateral talks and discussions on the issues of 
concern to the United States and other Members.  In  particular, a meeting of technical experts was 
held in Xi'an, China.  At that meeting, US experts had deemed WAPI a good WLAN security solution 
as IEEE 802.11i was in the stage of discussion.  The Chinese Government attached great importance 
to the concerns expressed by Members and was willi ng to hold consultations with those interested. 
(iii) Korea:  Average Fuel Econom y Standards for Passenger Cars 
13. The representative of th e European Communities  drew the Committee's attention to the draft 
Korean Average Fuel Economy standards for passenge r cars, which were currently under preparation 
and due to be introduced on 25 March 2004.  While  the European Communities shared the objective 
of controlling and reducing the fu el consumption of passenger cars, there was concern about the 
measure envisaged to achieve this objective.  It seeme d, in particular, that the new draft would require 
significant improvements in fuel efficiency only from imported passenger cars  and that other, less 
trade restrictive means to achieve the objective, had not been taken into account.   The European 
Communities asked for a postponement of the adop tion of the measure and requested the Korean 
delegation to notify the draft measure under the TBT Agreement.   
14. The representative of Korea  stated that he would transmit the concerns raised to his capital.   
2. Concerns Previously Raised 
(i) European Communities:  Regulation on Certai n Wine Sector Products (G/TBT/N/EEC/15, 
Corr. 1-2 and G/TBT/N/EEC/57) 
15. The representative of Mexico  informed the Committee that his delegation had submitted 
comments during the public consultation period on EC  Regulation 753/2002 and had participated in 
two informal consultations with the European Commun ities;  the latest had been held on the previous 
day.  While recognizing the amendments made to the EC Regulation 753/2002,  he stressed Mexico's 
remaining concerns regarding the impact of the regul ation on Mexican exports.  The root of Mexico's 
concern was that the EC Regulation allowed for a label to bear the name of a geographical area 
provided that at least 85 per cent of the grapes used to  make the wine had been harvested in that area, 
and that the wine had been bottled in that same area.  G/TBT/M/32 
Page 4  
 
16. The representative of New Zealand
 recalled that concerns a bout EC Regulation 753/2002 had 
been raised at every TBT Committee meeting since June 2002 and her delegation had already 
commented in detail on issues surrounding this regu lation. New Zealand was therefore disappointed 
that the regulation had been implemented on 15 March 2004.  Nevertheless, New Zealand 
acknowledged the amendments made to this re gulation (notification G/TBT/N/EEC/57).  The 
European Communities was aware th at New Zealand strongly opposed the exclusive reservation of 
traditional terms to producers from certain regi ons. Traditional terms or expressions were not 
geographical indications (GIs) and should not be treat ed as such.  New Zealan d was therefore pleased 
to see that the European Communities had made some  acknowledgment to this effect and that one of 
the amendments removed the requirement for certain  descriptors (such as vintage year and production 
method) to be "regulated" in third countries, and instead required conformity to "rules applicable to 
wine producers in the third country".  New Zeal and welcomed this acknowledgment of alternative 
regulatory approaches and equivalence, as requi red under Article 2.7 of the TBT Agreement. 
17. Nevertheless, the representative of New Zeala nd reminded the European Communities of the 
full range of concerns set out in her delegation' s written comments submitte d in August 2002. Many 
had not been addressed. For example, the limitation on the use of terms relating to vine varieties, 
production methods and vintage to wines carryi ng a GI seemed to disregard fundamental TBT 
requirements. This restriction could prevent accura te information being c onveyed to consumers and 
therefore appeared to run counter to the "legitimate obj ective" that the regulation aimed at advancing.   
18. It was recalled that at the TBT Meeting on 7 November 2003, New Zealand had requested the 
European Communities to notify its  proposed changes so that Members' comments could be taken 
into account, as per the obligation in Article 2.9 of  the TBT Agreement.  The amended regulation had 
been notified on 24 February 2004 and had been implemented on 15 March 2004.  New Zealand was 
disappointed by the short period of time between th e publication and notification of the amendment, 
and the implementation of the regulation.  Sin ce the regulation did introduce some additional 
requirements, New Zealand would have hoped that all TBT notification procedures would have been 
fully followed. 
19. The overall approach to wine labelling re flected in 753/2002 and the amending EC 
Regulation 316/2004 appeared to be  in conflict with core principles of the TBT Agreement, and in 
particular the Article 2 obligation to not create unnecessary barriers to trade and to ensure that technical regulations were not more trade restric tive than necessary to fulf il a legitimate objective.  
New Zealand therefore reiterated its interest in  receiving written responses to the concerns expressed 
in its August 2002 submission, ma ny of which had not been addr essed by the amending regulation. 
20. The representative of the United States
 was still studying the recently amended regulation.  
Given that Members were expected to comply w ith it as of 15 March 2004, it was questionable why 
the notification had been made at all;  this was hardly the "reasonable interval" foreseen in Article 
2:12 of the TBT Agreement.  The United States di d not feel that the substantially amended and 
revised regulation addressed the extensive comment s provided on the earlier regulation.  Although the 
United States had received a brief letter from the European Commission, highlighting some of the 
changes, this did not respond to the range of co ncerns that had been made in the original US 
submission of August 2002.  Considering the substan tive revision to the regulation, Members needed 
to be given an opportunity for comment on this new notification before entry into force.  It was not 
reasonable for the European Commun ities to think that suppliers could comply otherwise.  Given the 
long-standing and substantive concerns that had been  raised about these regulations, the United States 
asked the European Communities to  suspend their enforcement. 
21. The representative of Argentina  noted that the European Co mmunities seemed to consider 
that some of the concerns, expressed during the in formal consultations with a group of countries in 
October 2002 and July 2003, had been covered.  Although the representative of Argentina appreciated 
the efforts made to address these, he did not believe that they had been covered or clarified in their  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 5 
 
 
totality.  In addition to the various specific aspec ts flagged by previous speakers, Argentina believed 
that there were aspects of the amended regulation that caused concern and that went counter to the 
WTO agreements, and in particular the TBT Agreem ent, in a manner that could impede exports of 
wine from third countries into the European market.     
22. The representative of Australia  underlined her country's continued concern with the 
TBT consistency of the EC Regulation 753/2002 an d referred Members to the minutes of previous 
meetings where her country's concerns had been ou tlined in-depth.  The EC notification of certain 
amendments to that Regulation indicated that  these amendments "take account of the comments 
submitted and the results of the discussions" with a number of third countries.  It was not clear to the Australian delegation that this was the case.  Indeed , Australia continued to have concerns that the 
Regulation, as amended, remained in consistent with the TBT Agreement.   Concern with regard to the 
regulation of issues such as the traditional expressions  and the use of wine particulars had not been 
laid to rest, nor adequately taken into account.  In  addition, a number of other questions and concerns 
had been raised and had not been addressed at all.   Questions and concerns had been put to the 
European Communities in writing and Australia was still awaiting written responses to these.  
Australia considered that it would be helpful to th e process if an attempt were made by the European 
Communities to explain how the more recent amendmen ts to the Regulation met the specific concerns 
identified in the questions that had originally been  posed – and that such an explanation be put in 
writing.  Moreover, Australia had previously expr essed procedural concerns with regard to the 
promulgation of Regulati on 753/2002.  Seri ous concerns were expressed by several Members, 
including Australia, that although the regulation di d introduce some additional requirements, virtually 
no time had been provided for comments on the amendm ents.  This was a situation where Australia 
would have liked to see the TBT notif ication procedures properly followed. 
23. The representative of Brazil
 shared the comments made by prev ious speakers.  In particular, 
she regretted that no period for comment had be en provided on the amende d regulation.  This 
amendment was still being considered and it was Brazi l's hope that there would be an opportunity to 
comment on it.  Moreover, Brazil reiterated the re quest that written responses be provided by the 
European Communities to Members that presented their concerns. 
24. The representative of Uruguay  supported previous delegations' comments on notification 
G/TBT/N/EEC/57.  Given the limited time for comment s, her capital had neither been able to finalize 
the examination of the regulati on, nor had time to process comments.  That was the reason why 
Uruguay wished to maintain the right to reve rt to the issue at a later meeting.   
25. The representative of th e European Communities  noted that the Commission had adopted 
amendments to Community-wide labelling rules on 20 February 2004.  Those amendments were 
contained in Commission Regulation 316/2004 and th e Community wine labelling rules were set out 
in Regulation 753/2002.  The amendments took into  account the comments submitted by a number of 
WTO Members following the notification of Comm unity-wide labelling rules in 2002 (notification 
G/TBT/N/EEC/15). The amendments also considered  the results of subsequent discussions including 
two rounds of informal consultations in Geneva, formal TBT Committee meetings, and other bilateral 
contacts.   
26. The main substantive amendment concerned two issu es.  On the first issue, traditional terms, 
these were terms used traditionally to designate quality  wines.  The regulation notified in 2002 set out 
two categories of such terms.  The first category contained terms that could be used by EU member 
States and third countries.  The second category w as reserved under certain conditions for wines 
produced in the EU.  The amendmen ts merged the two categories of traditional terms into one single 
list so that third countries could use all traditiona l terms provided that they  fulfilled equivalent 
conditions to those required for EU member Stat es.  These equivalent conditions included:  the 
submission of a substantiated request to the Co mmission that the traditional term in question was 
recognized and governed by either applicable rul es or by rules laid out by representative professional G/TBT/M/32 
Page 6  
 
organizations in the third country;  that the traditiona l term was sufficiently distinctive and/or enjoyed 
an established reputation in the third country;  that the traditional term had been traditionally used for 
at least 10 years in the third country; and, that the rules of the third country concerned in the term in 
question did not mislead the consumer.  There was also a provision relating to the language of the 
third country of origin.  Further details of the conditions were set out in Article 1.10 of Commission 
Regulation 316/2004. 
27. With regard to the second issue, on requirements  relating to the legisl ation and regulation in 
third countries, the amendments eliminated the require ments for third countries to have some form of 
legislation or regulatory framework in place to di splay compulsory and facultative particulars, for 
example, including terms such as the vintage year a nd vine varieties on the label of wine exported to 
the Community.  Following the amen dments, those obligations for certa in information were able to 
conform to rules applicable to wine producers in the third country concerned.  Such rules included 
those emanating from representative professional organizations.   
28. Finally, the representative of the European Co mmunities recalled that a transition period to 
the amended rules had ended on 15 March 2004.  Third country comments and the result of 
subsequent discussions had been taken into account in the amendments to Community wine labelling 
rules.  To maintain and ensure transparency w ith its trading partners, these amendments had been 
notified.  The European Communities had carefully  noted all the questions, comments and requests 
and would get back to all interested Members.   
(ii) European Communities:  Regulation on the Regi stration, Evaluation and Authorisation of 
Chemicals – "REACH" (G/TBT/W/208 and G/TBT/N/EEC/52 and Add.1.) 
29. The representative of Mexico
 reiterated the points made in ot her international fora, and at 
other meetings, to the effect that Mexico w as clearly opposed to the EC "REACH" system on 
chemicals.  Nevertheless, Mexico was prepared to work with their EC counterparts to find a solution 
which the Mexican industry could comply with. 
30. The representative of Japan  noted that while fully sharing the legitimate objective of 
protecting human health and the environment, Japan  had concerns about the huge negative impact on 
trade or investment on countries outside of the Eu ropean Communities.  As the Japanese industry was 
interested in the new regulation, the Japanese Gove rnment had repeatedly expressed strong interest 
and concern to the European Commission.  After th e notification of this proposal to the WTO, on 
21 January 2004, Japan would analyse in-depth the REACH system and submit a formal comment.  Japan noted that at the APEC Chemical Dialogue Steering Group meeting in February 2004, concerns 
had been raised on this proposal.   
31. Japan had three main concerns with the REACH system.  First, regarding the registration of 
chemical substances contained in articles (Article 6) , Japan noted that since the scope of Article 6 was 
wider than the systems of other countries' chemical  management regulations, including Japan's, it ran 
the risk of becoming an excessive burden for importers  of articles.  Thus, Article 6 had the possibility 
of becoming an unnecessarily trade-restrictive provision.  Concerning Article 6.1 (registration), Japan 
expected the Commission to make a positive list of the substances or products subject to the 
registration, limiting the scope so that it woul d become necessary and su fficient in light of 
international standards.  On Article 6.2 (notifica tion), the requirement was unclear.  Japan expected 
the Commission to make a positive list that enum erated substances and products subject to the 
notification so that producers and importers could ha ve a predictable idea of what to do.  Otherwise, 
Article 6.2 had to be deleted.  Article 6.5 stipulated the exemption of "substances that have already 
been registered for that use by an actor up the suppl y chain", and this exemption would only apply, in 
reality, in the case that producers used substances that had already been registered by manufacturers 
or importers operating within the European Commun ities.   Japan requested that the Commission and  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 7 
 
 
other authorities considered measures to avoid this  problem, such as the deletion of "by an actor up 
the supply chain" from Article 6.5. 
32. Second, on the issue of registration of m onomer substances of which polymer consisted 
(Article 5.3), Japan noted that with regard to th e registration of substances in Article 5.3, if the 
manufacturer or importer of a polymer had to submit  a registration for the monomer substance, which 
was not contained in the polymer, it would be difficu lt, especially for importers of a polymer, to get 
information on safety data, etc.  Importers of  a polymer would be placed in a competitively 
disadvantageous position in respect of cost or procedures in comparison with EC manufacturers. 
33. Third, regarding the scope of chemical substa nces for authorizations (Article 54.f), Japan 
noted that according to the explanation given by the Commission, chemical substances, which were 
suspected to have endocrine disrupting effects n eeded to be treated as a substance subject to 
authorizations, which were identified on a case-by-case basis.  It was noted that the OECD was still 
conducting a Task Force on Endocrine Disrupters T esting and Assessment (EDTA) to develop the 
method of evaluation of endocrine di srupters.  In light of this, Japan considered that inclusion of 
chemical substances which had been  suspected to have endocrine disrupting chemicals in the subjects 
of authorizations seemed to be premature and scien tifically not appropriate at the current stage. 
34. The representative of the United States  supported the comments made by Mexico and Japan 
and wondered whether the European Communities planned to make public the comments submitted 
on the second REACH notification in a similar way as ha d been done for the first notification, as this 
procedure had proven useful.  Since the United Stat es was focussing its efforts on the response to the 
21 June 2004 deadline for providing comments, it was not in a position to make detailed comments at 
the current time.  Nevertheless, once completed, the United States would be pleased to make them 
available to others.  On substance, the United St ates remained concerned about the basic methodology 
of the EC proposal, which, from the US perspective,  was overly expansive, lacked focus and priority-
setting, and did not adequately assessed the economi c implications of the proposed approach.  In 
general, there were still opportunities to make the proposal more streamlined and effective. 
35. The representative of Canada  informed the Committee that detailed concerns had been 
identified with respect to the proposed "REACH re gulation" in formal comments supplied on the EU 
White Paper on Chemical Policy, in April 2002.  Ca nada had also participated in the internet 
consultation process in July 2003.  Canada wished  to continue this on-going dialogue on chemical 
policy with Europe, including regulatory co-ope ration, and would provide further comments on 
REACH prior to the 21 June 2004 deadline.  
36. The representative of China  welcomed the notification of the proposed REACH regulation 
and appreciated the fact that the European Co mmunities had provided a period of 90 days for 
comments and that the comment period had been extended for an additional two months.  Written 
comments to the European Communities would be provided in due course.  The REACH regulation 
had a wide coverage which involved more than 30,000 chemical products a nd relevant down-stream 
products.  Considering that procedures of registra tion, evaluation and authorization were complex, 
burdensome and costly, the import and export cost of  Chinese enterprises would de finitely rise.  This 
would negatively affect Chinese labour-intensive dow n-stream industries such as textiles and toys.  
The Chinese government had expressed its strong  concern on REACH regulation at various 
occasions, in the hope that the European Communiti es would minimize such effects, including with 
respect to the scope of coverage, the simplificati on of registration and eval uation procedures as well 
as the reduction in costs of such procedures.  It was also important that non-EU legal entities were 
allowed to submit registrations di rectly and that special and diffe rential treatment be provided to 
developing countries. 
37. The representative of Australia  supported previous interventions  and noted that her delegation 
was also preparing a written submission in respon se to the notification of amendments to the G/TBT/M/32 
Page 8  
 
legislation notified in the addendum to the notifi cation G/TBT/N/EEC/52.  While Australia took the 
view that there were some limited improvements, in  general, Australia remained concerned about the 
overall workability of the regulation and its likely trade impact.   
38. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 welcomed the extension of the comment period.  
However, due to the complexity of the regulati on, the Chinese Taipei industry had difficulties in 
understanding exactly what was required and how diffe rent conditions were applied in terms of the 
provision of safety data for chemicals, safety reports and test proposals.  While Chinese Taipei was pleased that requirements for registration of substa nces in articles had been reduced to a certain 
degree, the provisions of Article 6 still left uncertainties for Chinese Taipei manufactures, in 
particular as the term "release" was not defined.  It was proposed that the European Communities 
provide Members with a flow-chart illustrating acti ons to be taken (whether by manufactures, other 
agencies, member State authorities or the Commission)  and requirements to be met, in relation to 
different sections of the regulation.  Such a flow  chart would help manufacturers in Chinese Taipei 
better understand the structure of the REACH system, and the obligations it imposed. 
39. The representative of Chile
 appreciated the transparency that the European Commmunities 
had shown, including with respect to public consultation through the internet, the notification to the 
WTO, and the extension of the time limit for comment s.  Chile had had the opportunity to deal with 
this question bilaterally with the European Communities in the framewo rk of the EU-Chile 
Association Agreement.  Nevertheless, her de legation echoed the concerns expressed by other 
delegations regarding the impact the Regulatoin could have on trade, in particular for the small and 
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).  While Chile shared  the need to maintain the legitimate objectives 
of protecting health and the environment, the measure  needed to be adopted in a manner that did not 
restrict trade more than necessary to be able to achieve that objective. 
40. The representative of Thailand  shared the concerns expressed by previous speakers.  She 
appreciated the extension of the comment period a nd noted that her country would submit detailed 
written comments to the European Communities in the near future. 
41. The representative of the European Communities  reminded WTO Members that on 
21 January 2004 it had notified a proposal for a regul ation concerning the registration, evaluation and 
authorisation of chemicals (notification G/TB T/N/EEC/52).  Following different comments from 
stakeholders within the European Communities and from third countries, the earlier draft submitted to 
an internet consultation and published under Article  2.9.1 of the TBT Agreement, was substantially 
modified in order to make the proposed new system  less costly and more workable, while maintaining 
the guarantees for health and environmental pr otection.  By Addendum 1 to notification 
G/TBT/N/EEC/52, the initial 90 days period for comments had been extended until 21 June 2004.  
The European Communities would provide an an swer to all comments made by WTO Members. 
(iii) Brazil:  Decree on Beverages and Spirits (G/TBT/N/BRA/135) 
42. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  recalled that at the meeting of the TBT Committee 
held on 7 November 2003, her de legation had expressed concern about a measure notified by Brazil 
under Article 2.10.1 of the TBT Ag reement in document G/TBT/N/BRA/135.  The measure, set out in 
Decree No. 4851, amended definitions of beverages and spirits such as rum, cachaza  and aguardiente , 
and entered into force on 3 October 2003.  Since la st meeting of the Committee, the delegations of 
Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, the Dominican Republic and Jamaica had communicated concerns 
about the Decree to the Brazilian authorities in accordance with Article 2.10.3.  To date, the 
delegation of Trinidad and Tobago ha d not received a written response.   
43. On procedure, Article 2.10.1, under which the amendment had been notified, called for 
immediate notification of Members.  Such notification had to include an indication of the nature of the 
urgent problems. However, Members were notifie d about the amendment 24 days after the measure  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 9 
 
 
had entered into force.  Confirmation was s ought from Brazil as to whether the questions and 
comments that had been submitted to the Brazilian au thorities would be taken into account and, if so, 
whether the measure would be suspended while thes e questions and comments we re being considered.  
The Brazilian authorities had cited "the prevention of  deceptive practices" as the objective, rationale 
and the nature of the urgent problem that led to  the amendment of the Decree.  The delegation of 
Trinidad and Tobago requested a fuller explana tion of the "deceptive prac tices" that the Brazilian 
authorities were seeking to prevent and which had caused  such hasty entry into force of the measure.   
44. On technical issues, in Decree No. 4851, reference was made to "molasses".  The 
representative of Trinidad and Tobago wondered whet her this referred to sugar cane molasses and, if 
so, the text needed to be amended to read "s ugar cane molasses" wherever the word "molasses" 
appeared.  This would ensure an accurate definition of rum.  Trinidad and Tobago was also concerned 
about the distillation process described in the Decree .  Caribbean rum producers had advised that the 
distillation of alcoholic spirits could only be achie ved through the fermentation of the raw material 
being used. Clarification was therefore sought on th is element of the Decree and it was suggested that 
an amendment of the language used be made so as to ensure an accurate reflection of the process 
through which alcohol was produced.  Failure to ma ke such an amendment would be misleading and 
could lead to practices with a negative effect on th e global trade in the products mentioned in the 
Decree, such as distilled spirits and rum. 
45. Trinidad and Tobago looked forward to receivi ng a written response to these questions and to 
those contained in its written communication to th e Brazilian authorities.  Her delegation remained 
open to informal discussions with the Brazilian delegation on this matter. 
46. The representative of Jamaica  also had serious concerns about the negative implications the 
implementation of Decree No.4851 would have for Jamaica's trade in rum products, as well as, more 
generally, the global trade in the products mentione d in the Decree.  Jamaic a, along with Barbados, 
the Dominican Republic and Trinidad and Tobago, had communicated these concerns in writing to the 
delegation of Brazil, requesting that they be take n into account in accordance with Article 2.10.3 of 
the TBT Agreement.  In addition to the comment s made by the representative of Trinidad and 
Tobago, the entirety of which the Jamaican delega tion endorsed, Jamaica also sought clarification on 
certain points regarding the language used in th e Decree in reference to process of producing:  
(i) "Molasses spirit" from molasses as reflected in Ar ticle 90.2; (ii) "Grain spirit" from grain as in 
Article 90.3;  (iii) "Vegetable spirit" from vegetable as in Article 90.4;  (iv) "Raw Brown sugar spirit" 
from raw brawn sugar or "raw brown sugar syrup sp irit" from raw brown sugar in Article 90.5; and, 
(v) "Sugar cane spirit" from sugar cane in Article 91.1.  Jamaica was likewise concerned with the 
description given for the distillation process.  This De cree currently stated that alcoholic spirits could 
be obtained by a single alcoholic distillation.  Howe ver, in Jamaica's view, it was not possible to 
produce any alcoholic spirits of any kind from a "single alcoholic distillation" alone.  The raw 
materials had first to be fermented in order to produce alcohol after which the distillation process 
could take place.  Jamaica was therefore requesting th at the Decree be amended to ensure an accurate 
reflection of the distillation process for the production of alcoholic spirits.  Jamaica remained open to 
holding discussions with Brazil, and looked forward to  receiving, in the near future, Brazil's response 
to the questions and concerns raised. 
47. The representative of the United States  noted that her country was not aware of the issue until 
it had been raised at the last meeting of the TBT Committee.  The United States had since found that it 
shared substantive concerns expressed by previous speakers with the proposed regulation, adopted on 
an emergency basis.  The United States requested mo re clarification from Brazil about the nature of 
the emergency.  Comments on behalf of the US industry, which had basic questions about the 
approach that Brazil was taking, would shortly be  transmitted.  The United States hoped that these 
would be taken into consideration.  It was pointed  out that the standard to identify distilled spirits, 
sold in the United States, the European Union, Cana da and nearly all other major spirits markets, was 
based only on the raw materials' production process an d the characteristics of the product, and was not G/TBT/M/32 
Page 10  
 
defined in terms of distilled spirits' chemical co mposition, as Brazil was proposing.  The United States 
was anxious to hear from Brazil about the status of  the regulation and any efforts they had under way 
to take into account the co mments that had been raised. 
48. The representative of Barbados
 fully shared the concerns of a procedural nature which had 
been outlined by the delegation of Trinidad and Tobago and shared those of a substantive nature 
mentioned by the same delegation as well as Jamaica and the United States.  First, there was a crucial 
need for the word "sugar cane" to be inserted be fore the word "molasses" wherever "molasses" was 
used in the Decree.  If the Decree was not amended in such a way, a precedent would be created that 
would lead to counterfeiting of cachaza  and rum and other similar di stilled spirits.  Amending the 
Decree in the proposed way would make Brazil's de finition of rum similar to other long-standing 
definitions of rum adopted in the Caribbean as we ll as by Canada, the European Communities and the 
United States.  Any new definition that did not expl icitly recognize that rum and similar spirits could 
only be produced exclusively from sugar cane would undermine the integrity of the product in international markets and could create confusion th at could be exploited.  The second major concern 
related to inaccuracies in some of the technical language in the Decree.  A careful reading of the 
Decree showed that, in Articles 90.2-5, and Arti cle 91.1, reference was made to production of 
different alcohol spirits  "by the single alcoholic distillation" or "by the distillation of fermented 
mash".  This language was inaccurate as it was not  possible to produce alcoholic spirit of any kind 
through "single alcoholic distillation" alone.  The ra w material in question had first to be fermented 
before the distillation process occurre d in order to produce alcohol.   
49. It was noted that since the last meeting of the TBT Committee, the delegation of Barbados, 
along with the delegations of the Dominican Repub lic, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, had sent 
two joint letters to the Brazilian government through the Permanent Mi ssion in Geneva.  In addition, 
individual communications had been sent from Enquiry  Points to the Brazilian TBT Enquiry Point.  
All of the substantive concerns with Decree No. 4851 had been outlined in those communications.  
Barbados therefore reiterated her country's re quest that Brazil suspend the application of 
Decree No. 4851 and take into account the written co mments.  Barbados remained open to holding 
consultations with Brazilian authorities on the matter with a view to resolving the issue quickly, and 
certainly before the next meeting of the TBT Committee.   
50. The representative of the Dominican Republic
 supported, in full, the statements made by 
Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados.  De tailed comments and substantive communications 
on Decree No. 4851 had been made to Brazil and ther e was a need to hear answers, including on the 
possibility of suspending the application of the Decree.  
51. The representative of th e European Communities  associated herself with the statements made 
by previous speakers.  In particular, the Eur opean Communities was concerned about the impact on 
trade, and the creation of unnecessary technical barri ers to trade.  On procedure, the European 
Communities noted that the notification of the Decree  came after its adoption and the reasons for the 
urgency of the measure were not fully understo od.  Moreover, the European Communities had 
submitted written comments, in January 2004, and hoped to receive a written reply shortly.  On 
technical substance, and with regard to the de finition of products and production methods, the 
notification indicated that the Decree aimed at pr eventing deceptive practices.  In the view of the 
European Communities, the Decree was more likely to increase the risk of deceptive practices.  First, 
in Articles 90, 91 and 93, there was a reference to sp irits being obtained by simple distillation.  It was 
the EC understanding that this element of the defin ition should refer not only to distillation but also to 
fermentation.  Second, the definition of rum need ed to specify that it was made from sugar cane 
molasses and not just molasses.  The European Co mmunities also had concerns with regard to the 
definition related to alcoholic strength, which it believed could lead to problems of customs 
classification.  With regard to cachaza , the European Communities had concerns about the protection 
of GIs and TRIPS.   Her delegation urged Brazil to suspend the Decree so as to consider the  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 11 
 
 
comments made, and to make amendments.  The Eu ropean Communities would stay in close touch 
with Brazil through informal consultations with  a view to resolving these problems quickly. 
52. The representative of Brazil  noted that her authorities had received draft letters from the 
concerned countries in the Caribbean and that the last specific request had been received on 
27 February 2004.  The information had been sent to the relevant Division of the Ministry of 
Agriculture which was responsible  for the Decree.  Comments would be analyzed and taken into 
account.  Members were requested to send further dema nds and explanations;  it would also be useful 
to receive the specific regulations of the countries con cerned so as to try to amend, or to adapt, the 
Brazilian regulation to the Members who had shown con cerns.  The intent of the measure was to give 
more clarity to the process of producing rum and cachaza  in Brazil.  It had been the perception of the 
Brazilian Government, as well as that of the Brazilian private sector, that more clarity was needed in 
this respect.   It had not been Brazil's intenti on to create any negative trade effect on Carribean 
countries, or any other country.  Brazil remained ope n to hold technical consultations with interested 
countries and would be in touch with tho se Members who had spoken on the matter.   
(iv) Ecuador:  Technical Standard on Carbon Ho t Roll Steel Rods for Reinforced Concrete 
53. The representative of Chile  referred to the response provided to her delegation by the 
representative of Ecuador at the meeting of November  2003 with respect to the question raised at the 
meeting of July 2003, and later reiterated in writi ng on 28 October 2003.  This was about the technical 
standard of Ecuador NTE-INEN 102 – 2003 (third re vision) relating to Carbon Hot Roll Steel Rods 
for Reinforced Concrete (construction material).  The concern of Chile arose from the requirement in 
the mandatory Ecuadorian measure to mark, in relie f, during the production process of the steel rods 
inter alia  the name of the producer and of the importer .  With regard to the information on the 
producer, this was not a problem since this was a single information and it did not matter in which 
market the product was sold;  all production would ca rry that mark.  The same was not true, however, 
with respect to information on the importer.  If all importing countries were to establish as a 
requirement that imported steel rods needed to have marked, in relief, the name of the importer this 
would become a very burdensome requirement.  It would mean that rods would not be able to be 
produced anymore in an assembly line, but would be ad hoc , tailored for each customer, each 
importer, each country that purchased the product.  It would mean higher costs, which finally would have to be borne by the consumer.  In the case of the Ecuadorian measure,  only the imported product 
would be concerned since the Ecuadorian product woul d just have to show the information regarding 
the national producer.  While Chile shared the basi c objective of safeguarding the safety and security 
of persons – particularly since its country was ve ry earthquake prone – Chile considered that there 
were other less trade-restrictive options to fulfil th is objective, and asked Ecuador to consider these 
other alternatives.  Finally, the representative of Ch ile's believed that the measure did have an impact 
on trade, and, therefore, recalled the offer made by Ecuador to notify it. 
54. The representative of Ecuador
 recalled that her delegation had provided Chile with the 
responses to the questions raised at the November 2003 meeting of the Committee.  On that occasion, 
Ecuador had indicated that it could  notify the technical regulation at issue so as to maintain 
transparency.  However, for Ecuador, the conditions necessary to make this notification, contained in 
Article 2.9 and 5.6 of the TBT Agre ement were not fulfilled.  The objective of the measure, as rightly 
pointed out by Chile, was to safeguard the safety and security of persons.  This was, hence, in 
Ecuador's constitution and internal regulations, a majo r concern.  However, Ecuador did take note of 
the comments made by Chile in this regard and these would again be transmitted to the Ecuadorian 
authorities and a response would be provided.   G/TBT/M/32 
Page 12  
 
(v) India:  Labelling of Pre-packaged Consum er Products and Mandatory Quality Standards for 
133 products (G/TBT/N/IND/1) 
55. The representative of the European Communities
 reminded the Indian delegation that on 
9 March 2002, his authorities had submitted co mments concerning notification G/TBT/N/IND/1 
regarding the labelling of pre-packaged consumer  products and the mandatory certification for 133 
products.  The European Communities had made comments concerning the two texts notified under 
the same code at the last TBT Committee meeting and India was again urged to provide an answer.   
56. The representative of India  believed that his delegation had attempted to respond to the EC 
concerns through the TBT Committee, as well as on a bilateral basis.  India had reiterated that 
requirements contained in notification G/TBT/N/ IND/1 had been consistent with its national 
legislation as laid down in the Standards and We ight Measures Rules, 1977 and that these were 
applied to both domestic and im ported products.  The representative of India noted the comments 
made by the European Communities but did not have anything else to add at the current time;  his 
authorities would further study what additi onal details could be provided through the 
TBT Committee, or on a bilateral basis. 
(vi) Korea:  Import of Fish Heads 
57. The representative of New Zealand  reiterated her country's concerns  with regard to fish head 
imports into Korea.  At the last two meetings  of the Committee, New Zealand had made specific 
requests for justification for Korea's measure banning imports of edible fish heads.  No satisfactory 
explanation had been received.  Korea had asserted that "fish heads are generally regarded as waste 
and as not edible".  However, Korea had also acknow ledged that fish heads were eaten and treated as 
food in Korea.  For a Member to "regard a produc t as waste" was not a legitimate reason to prohibit 
the import of that product, especially when ther e was an acknowledgement by Korea that these 
products could constitute food.  Ne w Zealand requested Korea, in acco rdance with Article 2.5 of the 
Agreement, to explain the justification for its  measure under relevant GATT and TBT provisions.  
New Zealand continued to believe that Korea's measure was inconsistent with WTO obligations, 
whether considered in terms of  GATT Article XI or under the re levant provisions of the TBT 
Agreement.  The Republic of Korea had been info rmed that New Zealand could process Hake heads 
to an edible standard and could provide appropr iate government assurances.  New Zealand was not 
aware of any specific sanitary risks to human health  to justify the current prohibition of Hake head 
imports, and none had been offered by Korean agenci es.  Other than requiring that the product be 
handled under sanitary conditions, Korea did not place specific rest rictions on the cutting of fish 
heads by Korean fishing vessels abro ad for human consumption in Kor ea, or the cutting of fish heads 
in Korea for human consumption in Korea, or th e consumption of fish heads in Korea.  The 
representative of New Zealand found it difficult to r econcile this approach with the import ban.  She 
thanked the Korean authorities for a letter recently  received concerning the tariff classification issue 
of Hake head which did indicate some willingness by the authorities to try and respond to some of 
their concerns.  However, she remained con cerned that Korea had not provided compelling 
justification for the WTO consistency of its im port measure.  The only conclusion that could be 
drawn, therefore, was that the measure was not b ased on any legitimate objective, but was designed to 
afford protection to Korea's domestic industry. 
58. The representative of Norway  informed the Committee that his country had similar trade 
concerns as those stated by the pr evious speaker.  On a bilateral basis, Norway had – so far without 
result – been trying to solve the issue for quite some time.  But Norway was still endeavouring to 
obtain a satisfactory explanation as to why the restri ctions, which Norway belie ved were inconsistent 
with WTO provisions, were upheld by the Korean authorities.  His delegation would appreciate a 
written explanation from Korea.   G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 13 
 
 
59. The representative of the European Communities  supported the comments made by New 
Zealand and Norway.  EC producers were facing the same restrictions in the Korean market, in 
particular with regard to Cod fish heads.  Kor ea was urged to provide for the justification for the 
measure, and to remove the restrictions wh ich the European Communities viewed as unnecessary 
technical barriers to trade.   
60. The representative of Korea  appreciated New Zealand's concern regarding the issue of import 
restrictions on Hake head.  In addition to reasons given at the previous meeting, Korea stressed that 
the nature of the matter was not simply commercial,  but also had social and political dimensions.  In 
the case of food-related items which were not ed ible, and generally regarded as waste in both 
countries, the trade considerations needed to be d ealt with cautiously.  Nevertheless, Korea remained 
open to having further bilateral dialogue with Ne w Zealand on this matter.  Moreover, it was his 
understanding that with respect to Cod head, th ere were ongoing bilateral consultations with the 
European Communities and Norway.  The concerns  expressed would be conveyed to capital and 
efforts would be maintained to find a solution on a bilateral basis. 
(vii) India:  Second Hand and New Vehicles (G/TBT/N/IND/9) 
61. The representative of the European Communities  noted, in respect of the issue of importation 
of vehicles and vehicle components into the Indian  market, that his delegation was particularly 
concerned about the practical problems linked to the importation of components and aggregates for 
vehicle production.  It seemed that the Indian  type approval test agency ARAI did not have 
appropriate test facilities for large engines, and th at manufacturers had to establish their own facilities, 
or in some cases test at competitors' facilities wh ich created problems of unfair competition.  The 
European Communities considered that such a procedure was excessively burdensome and reminded 
the Indian delegation that, although there had alr eady been bilateral discussions, an appropriate 
solution had not been found. 
62. The representative of India  noted that the EC delegation had raised two issues.  The first was 
directly linked to the measure itself, and the other was a suggestion made for India to consider joining 
the UN/ECE 1998 Agreement.  Regarding the first issue, and as already mentioned, discussions on a 
bilateral basis had taken place and India had explaine d the rationale of the measure put in place.  In 
respect of the second issue, India had made know its response to the EC suggestion; India had joined 
as an observer to the WP-29 and a decision had yet to  be taken on the question of whether to join the 
1958 and/or the 1998 UN/ECE agreements or both or none. The question of accession to any of the 
agreements administered by WP-29 would be decided by the Indian authorities only after having duly 
examined various aspects.  It was noted that th e EC delegation had refe rred to some additional 
elements regarding test facilities about which the re presentative of India would have to consult with 
his authorities. 
(viii) Argentina: Resolution on Sulphate Content in Wine and Wineries (G/TBT/N/ARG/101) 
63. The representative of th e European Communities  reminded the Argentinean delegation that, 
on 10 January 2004, following a reply from Arge ntina to its first comments, the European 
Communities had submitted further comments concerning notification G/TBT/N/ARG/101 on 
sulphate content for wines.  The Argentinean de legation was invited to provide answers to the 
comments sent. 
64. The representative of Argentina  noted that, in November 2003, the replies to the questions 
posed by the European Communities, in August 2003,  had been sent to the European Communities.  
Further clarifications requested by the European  Communities would be dispatched shortly.   G/TBT/M/32 
Page 14  
 
(ix) Argentina:  Labelling of Pre- Packaged Food (G/TBT/N/ARG/104) 
65. The representative of th e European Communities
 reminded the Argentinean delegation that, 
on 31 July 2003, his delegation had submitted co mments concerning notification G/TBT/N/ARG/104 
on labelling of pre-packaged food.  The Argentin ean delegation was invited to provide answers. 
66. The representative of Argentina  noted, with respect to notification G/TBT/N/ARG/104, that 
the MERCOSUR resolution had been surpassed by Resolution No. 26 in 2003 which took into 
account the comments made by the European Comm unities.  The incorporation of the MERCOSUR 
regulation in the national legislation was underway. 
(x) Argentina: Amendment of the Argentine Food Code on Olive Oil (G/TBT/N/ARG/90) 
67. The representative of Argentina  noted that there had been a process of questions, replies and 
clarifications regarding notification G/TBT/N/ARG/90.   Recent clarifications would be sent shortly to 
the European Communities. 
(xi) Argentina:  Legal Appellation System  for Wine Products (G/TBT/N/ARG/107) 
68. The representative of Argentina  noted that also on this issu e there had been a process of 
questions and replies with the European Communi ties.  On 19 December 2003, Argentina had sent 
replies to the comments made by the European  Communities.  In March 2004, the European 
Commission had asked for more clarifications and these were now in preparation. 
(xii) European Communities:  Tra ceability and Labelling of Biot ech Food and Feed Products 
(G/TBT/N/EEC6 and 7 and Add.1-3) 
69. The representative of the United States  drew the Committee's attention to the issue of 
traceability and labelling of biotech food and feed products.  The United States remained concerned 
that the regulations were unclear, cumbersome, unworkable and trade disruptive without providing 
any real benefit to consumers.  Moreover, the Unite d States considered the regulations to be arbitrary 
as they required labelling for highly refined biotech  products, such as oil that did not contain 
detectable DNA or protein, while not requiring si milar labelling requirements on products that were 
produced with other non-biotech methods of devel opment.  These regulations discriminated against 
products produced from biotech, but not against pr oducts produced with biotech such as cheese and 
wine.  As the implementation date for the regulations  of 18 April 2004 was drawing close, the lack of 
implementation guidance on the part of the Europe an Commission and its member States became 
increasingly problematic.  Sampling and testing guidan ce had not been issued and there was a need to 
see how the products would be handled.  Although the United States had met with EC officials several 
times, questions remained, and the United States th erefore urged the European Communities to delay 
implementation until guidance was issued on how to comply. 
70. The representative of Canada  supported the comments made by the United States.  Her 
delegation questioned the scientific justification of  many elements in the regulations.   Canada 
wondered why, if  a product had been approved for food and feed u se in the European Communities 
and was therefore deemed to be safe, th e European Communities would place burdensome 
documentation and other requirements on exporters from third countries.  It was also unclear how the 
traceability in labelling requirements could be effectively implemented given the absence of segregation systems, and internationally accepted testing methodologies to validate the presence of 
GMOs.  These measures were creating uncertainty fo r Canadian exporters.  In light of the above, 
Canada also requested a delay in implementati on so that the European Communities could issue 
guidance regarding compliance.  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 15 
 
 
71. The representative of th e European Communities  stressed that the his authorities had always 
ensured full transparency with regard to its re gulations on the traceability and labelling of GMOs.  
These had been notified in G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 7.  Comprehensive written replies had been provided 
as well as information on the state of play of th e legislative process and the application of the 
measures in a series of addendums to the original no tifications.  The regulations aimed to reassure the 
European consumer, as well as allow the free circ ulation of products derived from bio-technology on 
the EU market.  They only applied to GMOs that  were authorized to be placed on the Community 
market following a scientific evaluation of the product safety.  The rules provided a harmonized 
Community framework which helped ensure that th e EU internal market worked, and eliminated 
differences between member States ' legislative and administrative rules on biotechnology, thus 
facilitating trade.  The rules also allowed the rapi d removal of products presenting any unforeseen risk 
to consumer health, animal health, eco-systems , as well as permitting the monitoring and surveillance 
of potential environmental impacts. 
C. OTHER MATTERS  
72. No other matters relevant to the implementa tion and administration of the TBT Agreement 
were raised. 
III. TRIENNIAL REVIEW 
A. ISSUES ARISING FROM THE THIRD TRIENNIAL REVIEW  
1. Good Regulatory Practice 
73. The Chairman  recalled that at the Third Triennial Review, Members had agreed on three 
recommendations aimed at furthering the Committee's work on good regulatory practice (contained in 
paragraph 14).3  These were all related to the exchange  of experiences.  The first recommendation 
mandated the identification of elements of good regu latory practice at the domestic level.   Second, 
Members agreed to focus on the choice of policy in struments, such as mandatory versus voluntary 
measures, and the use of regulatory impact assess ments to facilitate good regulatory practice.   
Finally, it had been agreed to initiate a process of sharing experiences on equivalency, particularly 
with regard to how the concept was implemented in practice.  The Chairman proposed as a way of 
commencing with the follow-up to the recommendati ons, that Members come prepared for the next 
meeting to have an initial exchange of expe riences, based on submissions, on good regulatory 
practices in the three above-mentioned areas.   
74. The representative of Colombia , while supporting the Chairman's proposal, wished to have 
some further guidance on the way in which the presentations on the exchan ge of experiences of 
national legislations would take place.  In general, for Colombia to know, for example, what the 
length of the presentation should be and whether it would be useful to send copies of the national 
legislation beforehand.  Her delega tion intended to make a presentati on of its experience, both at the 
domestic and at the level of the Andean Community, at the next meeting of the Committee.  
75. The representative of the United States  considered the exchange the Committee was having 
on the follow-up to the Third Triennial Review some what awkward.  For example, the information 
that had been presented by Chile (paragraph 3, above) had been quite useful and interesting, and it had 
been made under the Agenda Item on Statements of  Implementation.  Likewise, the United States 
would welcome the presentation that Colombia had to offer.  However, as a matter of procedure, this 
needed to be part of the Committee's normal agen da;  while it was in the follow-up to the Third 
Triennial Review, it was also information for the Committee.  Nevertheless, the Committee was trying 
a new agenda structure and, over time, it might need to adapt it to the actual discussions.  There had 
                                                      
3 Unless otherwise stated, paragraph numbers refer to  those of the Third Triennial Review (G/TBT/13). G/TBT/M/32 
Page 16  
 
been many issues that had appeared in the Sec ond Triennial Review, but Members only came forward 
on a few of the topics after the review to promot e more in-depth discussions.  This would no doubt 
happen as a result of the Third Triennial Review, and th ere could be other issues that Members raised.  
In any case, the United States supported, generally, the Chairman's suggestion for Members to come 
at the next meeting with papers on par ticular topics of interest to them.   
76. The representative of Canada
 appreciated the Chairman's suggestion to initiate focused 
discussions on good regulatory practice at the next  meeting of the TBT Committee. Canada was 
interested in discussing this issue and had indicated in the past that it intended to submit an experience 
paper in 2004.  Canada was particularly interest ed in having the Committee entertain serious policy 
discussions on the subject given the influence that good regulatory practice had with respect to 
specific aspects of the TBT Agreement.  An exam ple of this was the manner in which technical 
regulations were designed;  the way in which st akeholders were consulte d related directly to 
comments and notification periods.  Canada had a good regulatory framework in place and would be 
pleased to bring forward its experiences in this regard .  This framework was not static.  In fact, the on-
going work of Canada's new external Committee on Smart Regulation looked at how its regulatory 
framework could change given that the environment was changing.  Canada had, for example, issued 
a precaution framework paper in July 2003 as an asp ect of dealing with risk assessment – a key 
element of good regulatory practice.  The representati ve of Canada suggested that, as a starting point, 
it could be useful from an information point of view  to know what work had already been undertaken 
on this issue.  Significant work had been done in  international fora such as the APEC or OECD, to 
identify the key elements of good regulatory practice.   If Members also submitted experience papers, 
the Committee would be in a better pos ition to initiate a focused discussion. 
77. The representative of the European Communities  agreed with the Chairman's suggestion that 
the Committee begin, in earnest, an exchange of views considering specifically the three 
recommendations in the report.  As a minimum, the European Communities would plan to re-introduce for the next meeting the document that had been submitted as part of the Triennial Review 
and, if necessary, bring it up to-date with recent developments in the European Communities.  As 
Canada had mentioned, it was very important to star t this process by having as much information on 
the table as possible both from Members and from outside organizations, such as the APEC and 
OECD. 
78. The representative of China
 fully agreed that the issue of good regulatory practice was 
important, evolving and worthy of further di scussion in the Committee.  China was willing to 
participate in exchange of experiences and informa tion with regard to elem ents of good regulatory 
practice such as transparency, adop tion of international standards, equivalency and regulatory impact 
assessments.  China suggested th at the TBT Committee continue its discussion on good regulatory 
practice by clarifying some critical concepts relate d to the implementation of the Agreement, such as 
with respect to international standards.  Th e APEC Sub-Committee on Standards and Conformance 
(SCSC) had worked out relevant guidelines and had held several semi nars and workshops on a regular 
basis with regard to good regulatory practice.  Therefore, China suggested that the TBT Committee 
make reference to the relevant documents and experiences of the APEC SCSC where necessary. 
79. The representative of Mexico  supported the proposal by China in respect of making work 
done by APEC known to all Members. 
80. To conclude, the Chairman  noted that there was a clear need for focused and concrete 
discussion in the Committee on good regulatory practi ce in response to the recommendations from the 
Third Triennial Review.  He invite d all delegations to come up with submissions for the next meeting 
that could help move the Committee's discussions forw ard in this regard.  Considering what had been 
mentioned regarding the possibility of using other it ems of the agenda to share information on good 
regulatory practice, this still remained an option fo r Members who wished to do so.  In addition, it 
was important that those Members who wished to give the Committee information relevant to the  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 17 
 
 
work of international organizations did so, as th is would enable the Committee to benefit from the 
work done in other fora.  Likewise it would be impor tant for observers to contribute with information 
on their experience.  
2. Transparency Procedures 
81. The Chairman  recalled that the Committee was suppo sed to hold, on a biennial basis, 
meetings of persons responsible for information exchange, including persons responsible for Enquiry 
Points and notifications in order to give Me mbers the opportunity to discuss the activities and 
problems relating to information exchange and to  review periodically how well the notification 
procedures worked.4  Such a meeting should have been held in 2003, but, due to the priority given to 
other events (the workshop on TBT-related Tech nical Assistance held in March 2003, and the 
Learning Event on Labelling, held in October 2003), it had been postponed.   Hence, he informed the 
Committee that the Secretariat would begin the prep arations for a Special Meeting on Procedures for 
Information Exchange to be held on 2 November 2 004, back-to-back with the third meeting of the 
Committee in 2004.  Since this activity was include d in the Technical Assistance and Training Plan 
for 2004, there would be funds available for th e participation of capital-based officials from 
developing countries.  The Secretariat would make  available a draft programme before the Summer 
break.   
82. On the issue of transparency procedures a nd the Third Triennial Review, the Chairman 
recalled that Members had agreed on three sets of recommendations (in paragraphs 26-28) dealing 
with the handling of comments on notifications, wi th the electronic transmission of information on 
proposed technical regulations, conformity assessmen t procedures and standards, and with the follow 
up on Members' technical regulations or confor mity assessment procedures (CAPs) brought to the 
attention of the Committee.  He suggested  that the Committee address these specific 
recommendations in the context of the above-menti oned meeting.  The Committee could then revert 
to these recommendations after the meeting and consid er to what extent more work needed to be 
done.  This procedure would not prevent any Member  from making suggestions or proposals ahead of 
the meeting in November 2004.   
83. The Committee agreed  on this approach. 
84. Referring to paragraph 28, the Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the fact that it had 
agreed to have amendments to notif ications carry the same symbol as th at of the original notification.  
He encouraged Members to clearly indicate, when submitting an amendment to a previous 
notification, the original document symbol.  The Se cretariat would then issue the new notification as 
an addendum or revision to the orig inal notification, as appropriate. 
3. Conformity Assessment 
85. The Chairman  recalled that at the Third Triennial Review, the Committee had agreed on a 
work programme intended to improve Members' impl ementation of Articles 5 to 9 of the Agreement, 
and promote a better understanding of Members'  conformity assessment systems. The work 
programme was contained in the recommendations set  out in paragraph 40.  First, Members had 
agreed to exchange information and experiences on conformity assessment procedures and practices, 
and, more specifically, on Suppliers' Declarati on of Conformity (SDoC).  Second, Members had 
agreed to organize two workshops, one on SDoC an d one on the different approaches to conformity 
assessment.   Third, the Committee agreed to inv ite representatives from relevant international and 
regional accreditation fora to provide  information on their operation a nd the participation of Members 
in their systems.   
                                                      
4 G/TBT/1/Rev.8 Page 19. G/TBT/M/32 
Page 18  
 
86. At the previous day's informal meeting, th e Committee had discussed the issue of when to 
organize a workshop on SDoC and had agreed to  hold it in March 2005, unless funds were made 
available to the Secretariat which would enable the Committee to hold it at an earlier date. The 
Chairman asked the Secretariat to provide a draft programme for this workshop to be considered at 
the next meeting.  The Committee al so agreed that it should use the day on 29 June to move ahead 
with its work programme in the area of CAPs.  Hence, the Committee would dedicate this day to:  
(i) have an in-depth discussion on SDoC;  (ii) in line with the third tiret in paragraph 40, have 
presentations made by representatives from releva nt international and regional accreditation fora 
regarding the operation and the par ticipation of Members, in partic ular developing country Members, 
in their systems; and, (iii) address any other issue relevant to CAPs.   
87. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 introduced a submission on SDoC, contained in 
document G/TBT/W/195/Add.1, dated 16 March 2004, which was a follow-up to a previous 
submission on the same topic.  The document had been circulated in response to the call, in the Third 
Triennial Review, for an exchange of information and experience on the implementation of SDoC.  It 
described detailed findings of the second SDoC market surveillance review conducted in 
December 2003 and contained a preliminary analysis  of these results.  The product that was the 
subject of the review was excha ngeable power supply which was a ke y component in computers.  One 
of the most interesting findings of the review was that while the non-co mpliance rate was just 
½ per cent, indicating a high awareness of the ne w system amongst manufacturers when products 
were subjected to sample testing, the non-compliance or non-conformity rate was nearly 48 per cent.  
This high rate of non-conformity found in samp le testing raised serious concerns about the 
effectiveness of the SDoC system to meet legiti mate objectives, particular ly when non-conformity 
could not be attributed to a lack of awareness as confirmed by the results.  Chinese Taipei was now 
considering measures to correct the high rate of non-conformity.   
88. It had been noted that the implementation of SDoC in Chinese Taipei had been a process of 
trial and error, mainly due to limited availability  of empirical information.  Although the results 
achieved might not have been very successful, Chinese Taipei still felt that it was useful to share its 
experiences with Members in the TBT Committee, esp ecially in view of the future discussions on 
SDoC planned in the Committee.  Chinese Taipei would appreciate if other Members that had successfully implemented SDoC would also share th eir empirical experiences, especially in terms of 
any regulatory action that had been taken to resolve problems along the way.  Chinese Taipei was pleased that a workshop on SDoC had been included in the Work Programme as this could further 
facilitate the exchange of experiences.   
89. The representative of the United States
 thanked Chinese Taipei for the useful update to their 
previous paper.  As she considered that enforcem ent was a critical component of a successful system 
for implementing SDoC, she wondered if Chin ese Taipei was now imposing penalties for non-
compliant product, or if this was something under consideration. 
90. The representative of India , commenting more generally on the issue of conformity 
assessment, recalled that the Committee had em phasized, in the Third Triennial Review, the 
importance of complying with the relevant pr ovisions of the TBT Agreement contained in 
Articles 5-9.  It was noted that paragraphs 30-39 c ontained useful observations with respect to various 
approaches to acceptance of the results of  conformity assessment which included, inter alia , SDoC, 
Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs), and acc reditation among others.  India was open and 
flexible with respect to how the Committee wished to proceed on these recommendations.  
Nevertheless, it would be useful to have more Me mbers, with experiences on various approaches, to 
come forward and share these with the Committee.  India was thankful for the contribution from 
Chinese Taipei in this regard.  From the Indian pe rspective, it was important to get an idea of how 
developing country exporters could benefit from a less burdensome approach, including perhaps 
SDoC.  Turning specifically to the Chinese Taipei submission, it had been mentioned that the SDoC 
applied to 19 products, essentially from the elect ronics industry.  India wondered how the product  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 19 
 
 
coverage of this scheme had been  defined and what the product sample for the market surveillance 
report had been.  In particular, the representativ e of India wondered whether the product sample was 
predominantly related to domestic  products or whether it also incl ude imported products, and if this 
had a bearing on the issue of lack of awareness raised in the study.   
91. The representative of Chinese Taipei  noted, with respect to penalties, that there were three 
types of violations. However, the relationship between the Government and manufacturers was a  
cooperative one;  the  government was still trying to encourage manufacturers, and to remind them of 
the requirements.  Penalties would be imposed af ter further communication with the manufacturer, 
and would be decided at a later date.  On the i ssue of the sample products, Chinese Taipei did not 
have statistics on the number of the products which were imported a nd those which were domestically 
produced;  a sample had been collected in  the market place which included both.   
92. To Committee agreed  on the suggested procedure outlined by  the Chairman in respect of the 
Committee's work on conformity assessment (parag raph 86, above).  The Chairman again urged 
Members to present papers regarding the different aspects of conformity assessment, in order to improve the debate that the Committee would have  at its Dedicated Session on 29 June 2004.   
4. Technical assistance 
93. Under this agenda item, the Chairman
 suggested that the Committee deal only with the 
recommendations regarding technical assistance that arose from the Third Triennial Review.  Any other matters relevant to technical assistance and co -operation activities of Members, Observers or of 
the Secretariat would be dealt with under Agenda It em 5 (see page 23).  He recalled that the Third 
Triennial Review contained in essence three sets of recommendations.  The first one was about the 
possible creation of an "information coordination mechanism" (ICM).  The second was about 
technical assistance provided by the Secretariat and th e third was about the role of the Committee.  He 
suggested that the Committee consider them separately.   
94. Regarding the ICM (paragraph 54), the Chairman stressed the importance placed on 
transparency in the provision of tech nical assistance.  In fact, the text of this paragraph began with a 
reaffirmation of the "importance of transparency in the provision of technical assistance and the need 
for coordination at the national, regional and internat ional levels".  It went on to give the Chairman 
the mandate to hold consultations on  the extent to which an internet facility could serve the purpose of 
exchanging information between Members on current and future activities, and what the appropriate 
management approach might be to administer this  mechanism.  The Chairm an was then supposed to 
report back to the Committee by mid 2004. 
95. Considering the need for some haste, the Chai rman had held a number of consultations with 
those Members (Egypt, Brazil, Canada and New Zealand
5) who had made specific proposals in 
respect of paragraph 54.  The objective of these c onsultations had been to find some common ground 
before opening up the discussion at the Committee leve l.  What had emerged was that there appeared 
to be two inter-related concepts involved in the ma ndate for the ICM.  The first was the "management 
approach" and the second was the "internet facility".    The management approach, as set out in the 
relevant proposals, was a rather broad concept, re levant to the role of the Members, donors and the 
Committee, in implementing the Committee's ma ndate on technical assistance generally, and 
including with respect to the administration of the ICM.   There were two issues involved.  First, the nature of the body entrusted with the task of  implementing the Committee's mandate on technical 
assistance and, second, the specific functions it was set up to execute.  The internet facility was, 
perhaps more straightforward.  A suggestion on how it could be set up on a trial basis, was contained 
in the Chairman's Communication.
6  This was basically about how Members and donors could give 
                                                      
5 The proposals are contained in documents G/TBT/W/212, 216, 225, 232 and 233. 
6 Circulated by fax to all Members on 16 March 2004. G/TBT/M/32 
Page 20  
 
notice to the WTO Secretariat of TBT-specific need s or offers on technical assistance that were 
relevant to current and future activities – and how the TBT TA website could be used for this purpose.   
96. Reporting on the preceding day's informal meeti ng, the Chairman recalled that the discussion, 
based on his Communication, had focused on the first tir et of paragraph 54.  In  general, delegates had 
considered his Communication a good starting point.   Nevertheless, some dele gations had pointed out 
that the discussion needed to be framed in terms of more general principles.  It was emphasized that 
this exercise was essentially about transparency  and did not, in any way, prejudice Members' 
obligation under the TBT Agreement itself.  It was stressed by many that the ICM needed to remain 
simple, dynamic and user-friendly and that the Co mmittee needed to approach this subject in a 
pragmatic and realistic manner.  Several delegations emphasized the need not to duplicate work done 
elsewhere both in-house and in other organizations.  There was a need to identify gaps in existing 
mechanism of information exchange and see what the Committee, through its mandate in paragraph 
54, could add in value in light of such gaps.  In this regard it was pointed out that the ICM mechanism 
needed to stay focused on current  and future activities.  To conclude, the Chairman stressed that 
before revising his proposal, he wished other Me mbers (other than the above-mentioned who had 
made specific proposals), to let him know how they t hought the work needed to be brought forward.  
Such input would give him, and his successor, more of a basis to put forward a revision that reflected a broader consensus in the Committee.    
97. The representative of Switzerland
 pointed at the need for further coordination between the 
TBT Committee, the OECD/WTO team working on the database7 and the SPS Committee (in 
particular with respect to the SPS STDF facility).  This was needed so as to identify better policies, 
information gaps and gather lessons  learned so far.  On that basis the TBT Committee could prepare a 
paper responding to a number of key issues.  First, what was the value added in terms of transparency 
to the proposed TBT ICM?  Second, how c ould Members improve coordination on technical 
assistance?  Third, was it really feasible to estab lish a mechanism to match demand and supply?  In 
particular, Switzerland drew the Committee's attenti on to the experience of the STDF facility in the 
SPS area which could perhaps inspire discussions in the TBT Committee.  This was an initiative for 
which the WTO provided a Secretariat function an d which had created, amongst other projects, a 
specific database for SPS  techni cal assistance activities drawn fro m the OECD/WTO database.  The 
TBT Committee could explore the option of followi ng a similar approach so as to contribute to 
improving the quality and usefulness of TBT technical assistance activities.  It was suggested that the 
Committee invite a representative from the Secretariat who could speak about the OECD/WTO 
database, as well as the STDF facility, at the next meeting of the TBT Committee.  
98. The Chairman  noted that it would be very helpful to have the good ideas put forward by 
Switzerland in a paper for the Committee.  This was, in  fact, exactly what he had asked for in terms of 
views from other Members. 
99. The representative of the United States  supported the proposal made by Switzerland and 
hoped that the Chairman would take it into account in any further consultations ahead of the next 
meeting of the Committee.  Her delegation wi shed to be part of those consultations. 
100. Moving to the next two tirets of paragraph 54, the Chairman  noted that these were about the 
voluntary updating of the survey questionnaire and the encouragement to Members to communicate, 
to the Committee, pertinent information regarding technical assistance activities of relevant regional 
and international bodies.  He suggested that both th ese issues could be relevant to any eventual ICM 
developed under the first tiret (and just discussed) a nd that the Committee await the results from that 
discussion before taking action on these two points.   
                                                      
7 http://tcbdb.wto.org/  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 21 
 
 
101. Regarding the second set of recommendations, co ntained in paragraph 55, the Chairman 
noted that these referred to the Secretariat's role in  technical assistance.  First, the Secretariat was 
requested, as part of the Committee's standing agenda item on technical assistance, to regularly deliver information on its recently concluded progr ammes and future plans on TBT-related technical 
assistance, and reflect this in the Committee's an nual reviews.  Second, the Committee agreed to 
explore how the results of the Committee's discussions  (e.g., on needs identified, lessons learned, gaps 
in technical assistance activities) could be reflect ed in the WTO's Technical Assistance and Training 
Plan.   
102. The Secretariat
 noted, in respect of the first tiret of  paragraph 55 (on how the results of the 
Committee's discussions could be reflected in the WTO's Technical Assistance and Training Plan)  
that nothing prevented the Committee from forwar ding directly any specific needs identified on 
technical assistance to the Committee on Trade a nd Development for their consideration in the 
context of the development of the TA Plan for 2005.  However, to have an influence on that plan, and 
considering the timeline, such information would need to be forwarded preferably before the Summer.   
103. The representative of India  recalled that footnote 20 in the Triennial Review stated that the 
Secretariat would prepare a booklet and a CD-Rom on the TBT Agreement and wondered what plans 
the Secretariat had in this respect.  He stressed that the CD Rom prepared for the SPS Committee had 
been very useful for delegations. 
104. The Secretariat  noted that it was currently working on the booklet, which would be the first 
step, followed by the CD Rom.  The Secret ariat intended to have the booklet ready by 
November 2004. 
5. Other Elements 
105. The Chairman  recalled that in paragraph 61 (on te rms and definitions), the Committee had 
agreed that the ISO/IEC could be invited to pr ovide information to the Committee on the revised 
ISO/IEC Guide 2:1991 with a view to examining wh ether and how far this re vised document departed 
from ISO/IEC Guide 2:1991.  Hence,  with paragraph 61 in mind, the ISO had been asked to provide 
information to the TBT Committee on the revised Guide.  
106. The representative of the ISO  recalled that further to the report ISO had submitted at the TBT 
Committee's last meeting on the development of the ISO/IEC 17000 Conformity Assessment  - General vocabulary, ISO was pleased to report that  it was progressing this document to its final stage 
of development.  By June 2004 it would have been  translated and formatted into the three official 
languages of ISO (English French and Russian), and be released to ISO/IEC Members for a final two 
month ballot.  Assuming a positive vote, it was expect ed that the Standard would be published in the 
last quarter of 2004, or the first quarter of 2005.    The representative of the ISO recalled that the current ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996 Standardization and re lated activities – General vocabulary, would be 
modified to remove the clauses in that document which related to conformity assessment terms and 
definitions, and instead a cross-reference to th e new ISO/IEC 17000 would be inserted.  A new 
edition of ISO/IEC Guide 2 would be released with no other change than to take into account this 
removal, and to add a reference to the new ISO/ IEC 17000.  This edition would coincide with the 
publishing of ISO/IEC 17000. 
107. The representative of the European Communities
 recalled that Labelling was referred to in the 
Triennial Review under the headings "Good Regulator y Practice", "Transparency Procedures" as well 
as "Others Elements".  Under the latter heading it was stated that the: "The Committee agrees to 
continue to consider labelling con cerns in its discussions in the context of the implementation and 
operation of the Agreement".  In continuing di scussion on labelling, the European Communities felt 
that it would be useful for Members to refer back to the Labelling Event held in October 2003, as this 
had been very useful and had clarified a number of  concerns of the European Communities.  There G/TBT/M/32 
Page 22  
 
had been a number of common issues that had arisen  in the presentations and discussion, such as:  the 
importance of good regulatory practices;  the need fo r transparency in developing labelling schemes;  
the potential for labelling to have an impact on tr ade (both positive and negative);  the harmonization 
of labelling schemes between different Members;  the reasons for difference between labelling 
schemes in different Members;  and, different a pproaches to the use of voluntary and mandatory 
schemes.   
108. The representative of the United States
 was of the view that it was clear, in the Triennial 
Review, that the Committee had agreed to continue  to consider labelling c oncerns under the item of 
the agenda relevant to the im plementation and operation of the TBT Agreement.  Hence, the 
representative of the United States hoped that th e European Communities, and other Members that 
had an interest in labelling issues, raised them in the context of the Committee meeting under that 
agenda item. 
109. The representative of the European Communities  noted that there was an agenda item on the 
implementation and administration of the Agreemen t – but that was slightly different from the 
implementation and operation of the Agreement.  Al though perhaps this was a linguistic point, for the 
European Communities, there was a slight difference. 
110. The Chairman  noted that, at the current stage, he di d not consider that the Committee needed 
to have an in-depth discussion on this issue.  He  noted that there was an opportunity for Members to 
deal with labelling under the agenda.  
B. PREPARATION OF THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW  
111. The Chairman  recalled that at the last meeting, af ter the Committee had adopted the Third 
Triennial Review, one Member, supported by a few ot hers, had suggested that future agendas of the 
Committee should include a new and standing item on the preparation  of the Fourth Triennial 
Review.  Assuming that the Committee would meet th ree times a year, this meant that nine meetings 
from current one (by the end of 2006) the Committ ee would need to adopt its Fourth Triennial 
Review.  Three years seemed some time away, but the Committee did have quite some work ahead of 
it.  There could hence be some merit in setting out a procedure, at an early stage, for how over the 
next three-year cycle, and at what point the Committe e needed to start considering the wrapping up of 
the implementation of the Third Triennial Review and starting the process that would lead to a smooth adoption of the Fourth Review.  For this purpose the Chairman proposed to develop a procedural 
"roadmap" for the Committee's considera tion before the end of this year.   
112. The representative of the United States
 noted that the Committee had never had a "roadmap" 
to guide it in previous reviews and it was difficult to react to the Chairman's proposal in the absence 
of something to comment on.  It was stressed that it could be difficult to be too precise in deciding 
when things "started and stopped".  In other word s, the conclusions from the Third Triennial Review 
were ongoing in nature;  it was up to Members to br ing information to the table, for example, on 
national regulatory experiences.  This was not a procedure that "stopped" simply because the 
Committee was going to have a fourth Review.  In  any case, the United States would be willing to 
consider the Chairman's ideas and react to them at the appropriate stage. 
113. The Chairman  stressed that his intention was simply to order the debate during the coming 
three years.  There was no intention to decide al ready now what would actually be included in the 
Fourth Triennial Review.  The idea, or rationale, was to establish a procedure that could help the 
Committee be more efficient when it had to discuss and adopt the next Review.  
114. The representative of Canada  considered that the Chairman's offer to draft a roadmap on the 
procedure for the Fourth Triennial Review was he lpful.  Based on the experience the Committee had 
had with respect to the Third Triennial Review , where Members had found themselves both hurried  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 23 
 
 
and harried in completing the review, Canada had gi ven the matter considerable thought.  Canada was 
interested in identifying achievements, issues and timetables with respect to properly preparing the 
next Review.  Any thought the Chairman might  have in this regard would be helpful. 
115. The Chairman  indicated that he would proceed as proposed. 
IV. NINTH ANNUAL REVIEW 
A. THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE AGREEMENT (ARTICLE 15.3) 
116. The Chairman  noted that the Ninth Annual Review of the Implementation and operation of 
the TBT Agreement was contained in document G/TBT/14, issued on 5 March 2004.   
117. The representative of the United States  appreciated the fact that the Ninth Annual Review 
contained more detail in respect of technical assistance activities. 
118. The representative of Brazil  considered that the document was more user-friendly and could 
be used as a training tool. 
119. The Committee adopted  the report. 
B. THE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE (ANNEX 3) 
120. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the Ninth Edition of the WTO TBT 
Standards Code Directory prepared by the ISO/IE C Information Centre whic h contained information 
received according to paragraphs C and J of the C ode of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption 
and Application of Standards in Annex 3 of the Agreement.  To facilitate discussions on matters 
relating to the operation of the Code of Good Practice,  the Secretariat had prepared two lists.  The first 
list, contained in document G/TBT/CS/1/Add.8, co mpiled the standardizing bodies that had accepted 
the Code in the period under review.  In 2003, three standardizing bodies from three Members had 
accepted the Code of Good Practice and no standa rdizing body had withdrawn from the Code.  The 
second list, contained in document G/TBT/CS/2/Rev .10, compiled all the standardizing bodies that 
had accepted the Code since 1 January 1995.  It wa s noted that an addendum to the list had recently 
been issued as document G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.10/Add.1, dated 10 March 2004.   
121. The Committee took note  of the above-mentioned documents. 
V. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION 
122. The representative of Switzerland  informed the Committee that it would be presenting a list 
of its activities in the field of TBT at the next meeting. 
123. The Secretariat  updated the Committee on its recent technical co-operation activities as well 
as its plans for 2004.   Since the last meeting of  the TBT Committee, the Secretariat had held a 
regional workshop in Dhaka , Bangladesh on 13-14 November. The workshop had been organized by 
UNIDO as part of a project, carried out in the S outh Asian Countries, aimed at strengthening the legal 
and institutional framework for standards, metrology,  testing and conformity assessment.  Some 24 
officials from the SAARC8  LDCs participated:  Bangladesh, B hutan, Nepal and the Maldives.  Each 
country was represented by officials from the gove rnment, industry and national standardization 
bodies.  Back-to-back with this event, the same te am from the Secretariat held a national workshop in 
Delhi , India on 17-18 November 2003.  Some 50 pe ople attended this workshop from relevant 
Ministries and agencies involved in TBT issues.  In  the discussion, there wa s particular focus on 
                                                      
8 South Asian Association for Regional Co -operation (SAARC).  The full membership is:  Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, 
Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. G/TBT/M/32 
Page 24  
 
issues regarding conformity assessment, transparen cy and the recently adopted Third Triennial 
Review.  
124. A third regional workshop was held in Suva , Fiji from 27-28 November 2003 for the Pacific 
Island region.
9   34 government officials from 13 Pacific Island Forum Countries participated in this 
workshop, as well as 9 officials from the Forum Secret ariat.  The issues addressed in the Workshop 
included the benefits resulting from the implementa tion of the Agreement at the national level as a 
means of improving market access opportunities for the Pacific Island Countries.  Participants, at the end of the workshop, emphasized the need to, inter alia , notify the statement on implementation and 
administration of the Agreement, and to establish and no tify the existence of an Enquiry Point.  In this 
regard, the Secretariat pointed at the recently circulated Statement from Papua New Guinea under 
Article 15.2 (G/TBT/2/Add. 77, dated 5 March 2004). 
125. Also in 2003, the Secretariat attended the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Import 
and Export Certification Systems (the "CCFICS") which met in Brisbane , Australia on 1-5 December 
2003.  The Secretariat took advantage of this o ccasion to conduct an information session for the 100 
plus participants to give an overview of current  developments in both the SPS and TBT Committees.   
More specifically on the issue of judgement of equi valence for technical regulations, the Secretariat 
informed participants that the issue of equivale ncy had been discussed by WTO Members in the TBT 
Committee at a number of regular meetings as well as in the context of the Second and Third 
Triennial Reviews of the TBT Agreement.  Atten tion was drawn to the fact that different views 
existed among Members on this issue.  The Secretariat also recalled the recommendations arising from the Third Triennial Review whereby WTO Members would engage in a process of experience 
sharing in the area of equivalency.     
126. A regional workshop in Muscat , Oman, for six Gulf countries was held on 
14-15 February 2004.  This workshop was held in response to a specific requ est from GCC countries.  
The six participating countries were: Oman (host c ountry), Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and 
the United Arab Emirates.   At this workshop, some  41 officials responsible for TBT-related issues 
participated.  This included officials from nati onal standardizing bodies, regulatory authorities, 
ministries of commerce, industry, economy, health and agriculture.   Like the other workshops, the 
event was designed to facilitated the understanding of the provisions, principles and definitions in the 
TBT Agreement, and to update capital-based offici als on current discussions in the TBT Committee.   
Particular emphasis was given to the issues of conformity assessment. 
127. The Secretariat also particip ated in a national workshop on the “Role of Standards in 
Promoting Industry and Trade” held in Cairo , Egypt from 23-25 February 2004. This event was 
organized by the United States Commercial Law Deve lopment Program (CLDP), in co-operation with 
the Egyptian Organization for Standardization an d Quality Control (EOS) and funded by the US 
Agency for International Development (USAID).
10   
128. Turing to future events, the Secretariat info rmed the Committee that on the 20-22 April 2004 
it would hold a regional workshop in Lusaka , Zambia organized in co-operation with COMESA (the 
Common Market for East and Southern Africa).11   The workshop was aimed at COMESA Members 
and East African Countries.  The objective of this workshop was to assist participating countries in 
their understanding of the main principles and provisi ons of the TBT Agreement.  In particular, the 
Lusaka programme was designed to raise awareness on the importance of the implementation and administration of the Agreement and to update capita l-based officials on the cu rrent issues in the TBT 
                                                     
 
9 Fiji Islands Republic, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands (W TO Members);  Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu (countries acceding to 
the WTO); Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati,  Niue, Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu (non -WTO 
Members). 
10 The programme of the national workshop on the “Role of St andards in Promoting Industry and Trade” held in Cairo is 
available at http://www.wto.org/english/trat op_e/tbt_e/tbt_tech_list_memberactiv_e.htm 
11 The following countries had been invited:  Angola, Burundi, Comoros, DR of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 
Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia , Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Ug anda, Zambia and  Zimbabwe.  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 25 
 
 
Committee, in particular with regard to the rece nt recommendations arising from the Third Triennial 
Review.  Particular emphasis would be given to providing guidance on notification procedures and the 
functioning of Enquiry Points.12  A second regional workshop would be held in Hanoi , for Asian 
countries, on 4-5 May 2004.13   This workshop would take place back-to-back with a UNIDO national 
workshop specifically on TBT.  The Hanoi workshop  (the WTO event) would focus on a sub-group of 
12 countries  in the Asian Pacific. 
129. The Secretariat was still in the early phase of planning three more regional workshops to be 
held in the year and which were included in the 2004 Technical Assistance Plan.  These would cover 
French-speaking West Africa, Latin American and Central Eastern European / Central Asian 
countries.  More information would be forthcoming at the next meeting of the Committee.  Moreover, 
a number of requests for national workshops in the TBT area had been received.  The Secretariat was 
still looking into the possibility of fitting these into its schedule of activities.14 
130. The representative of India  wished to place on record India's appreciation with the WTO 
Secretariat for the national activity organized in No vember 2003, and particularly the team that had 
travelled to India from the Trade and Environment Di vision.  Participants had found the activity very 
useful and productive.    
131. The representative of UNIDO  recalled the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MoU) in Cancún, to enhance cooperation and to implement a joint technical cooperation programme 
between the UNIDO and the WTO.  He noted that this programme aimed, inter alia , at achieving an 
increase in developing country exports by removing supply side constraints.  Among other issues, he informed the Committee that UNIDO and the Inte rnational Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation 
(ILAC) have recently launched a publication on "Lab oratory Accreditation in Developing Economies, 
Tested Once - Accepted Everywhere".   He also drew the Committee's attention to the fact that 
UNIDO has been submitting to the OECD/WTO data base comprehensive information on its trade 
related technical assistance.  The representative of  UNIDO listed several activities of relevance to the 
TBT Agreement.  The full statement was ci rculated separately in G/TBT/GEN/3. 
132.  The representative of UNCTAD
 informed the Committee that, since early 2003, UNCTAD 
had been implementing a UK-DFID funded project for six developing countries in Asia and seven in 
Central America and the Caribbean, whose activities focused on issues of environmental requirements, market access and export competitiveness for various specific sectors.  More than 20 
country-case studies were being prepared on four different sectors:  leather and footwear;  electrical and electronic goods;  horticultural products; and organic produce.  For each product group, sub-
regional workshops and national policy dialogues ha d been held.   The analysis focused on four 
critical areas: (i) the level of awareness on envir onmental requirements in key export markets;  (ii) 
effectiveness of information gathering, analysis a nd dissemination;  (iii) current national adjustment 
measures for meeting the new requirements; and, (iv)  elements of more pro-active adjustment policies 
in developing countries.  It was noted that th e 7th Session of UNCTAD’s Commission on Trade in 
Goods and Services and Commodities, held in Gene va, in February 2003 had requested the UNCTAD 
secretariat to launch exploratory activities for the possible creation of a Consultative Task Force on 
Environmental Requirements and Market Acce ss for Developing Countries.  The UNCTAD 
secretariat and the National Institute of Metrol ogy, Standardization and Industrial Quality 
(INMETRO) of the Brazilian Minist ry of Development, Industry a nd Foreign Trade were jointly 
organizing a workshop, as a pre-UNCTAD XI event, on 7-8 June 2004 in Rio de Janeiro that would 
review the preliminary results of the exploratory phase of the Consultative T ask Force.  The full 
statement was circulated separately in G/TBT/GEN/4. 
                                                     
 
12 The full programme of this workshop is poste d on the TBT TA webpage at http://www.wto.org/ 
english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_act_list_activ_e.htm 
13 Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Fiji, Laos, Maldives, M ongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon 
Islands and Viet Nam (host). 
14 More information WTO TBT technical co- operation is on the WTO website (footnote 12, supra ) G/TBT/M/32 
Page 26  
 
133. The representative of Brazil
 stressed that her Government was very pleased to work with 
UNCTAD, through INMETRO on the issue of envir onmental requirements and market access which 
was a very important issue for developing countries, in  particular with respect to the participation of 
developing countries in the pre-regulation and pr e-standard setting processes.  The workshop that 
would be held in Rio de Janeiro, in June 20004 , would also deal with the launching of the 
Consultative Task Force mentioned by the representa tive of UNCTAD.    All Members were invited 
to participate in the Rio meeting as well as UNCTAD XI  to be held in Sao Paulo a week later.   
134. The representative of the ITC  reminded the Committee about a series of joint studies being 
carried out with the Commonwealth Secretariat (in Jamaica, Malaysia, Kenya, Uganda, Namibia, and 
Mauritius) in the area of TBT and SPS.  These studies had been completed and a publication entitled 
"Influencing and Meeting International Standards,  Challenges for Developing Countries" had been 
published (Volume One).  The publication was curren tly available in English (French and Spanish 
would follow) and had been sent to the TBT/SPS Enqui ry Points, the missions to the WTO in Geneva, 
and to the national standard bodies.  Later in  2004, the ITC and the Commonwealth Secretariat 
intended to organize a workshop to discuss the propo sals contained in the publication.  Copies were 
available from the ITC upon request. 
VI. OBSERVERS 
A. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS  
135. On the issue of requests for observer status, the Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to 
document G/TBT/GEN/2 which set out the situa tion with respect to observership by inter-
governmental organizations in the Committee.  Ther e were still four organizations whose requests for 
observer status were still pending:  the Office Intern ational de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV), the Bureau 
International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), the Gu lf Organization for Industrial Consulting (GOIC) 
and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  The Chairman noted that, to his understanding, 
differences remained among Members at a horizontal level and further consultations were still needed 
on the issue of observership.  For this reason he pr oposed that the Committee re vert to the requests at 
the next meeting. 
B. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS15 
136. The representative of the OIML  referred to the Committees previous discussion on the 
proposed establishment of an information coordi nation mechanism (ICM) and drew the Committee's 
attention to the activities of the Joint Committee on the Coordination of Assistance to Developing Countries for Metrology, Accreditation and Standa rdisation (JCDCMAS).  This Joint Committee 
grouped together the activities of the BIPM, OIML , ILAC, IAF, ISO, IEC, ITU and UNIDO.  The 
JCDCMAS was currently working on the completion of  the information obtained in the WTO survey 
of technical assistance needs and activities, as well as developing information modules for awareness 
raising activities in metrology, accreditation and st andardization.  The JC DCMAS would be holding 
its fourth meeting on 25 March 2004, in Geneva.  More informati on from the OIML is contained in 
G/TBT/GEN/5. 
VII. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 
137. With regard to the election of the new Chairperson, the Chairman
 informed the Committee 
that consultations were currently being carried out  on the selection of Chairpersons under the Council 
on Trade in Goods, and that these had not been comple te.  Therefore, he was obliged to suspend this 
agenda Item and revert to it at the next meeting of the Committee. 
                                                      
15 While the Secretariat of the Codex Alimen tarius Commission did not take make any statement at the meeting, information on 
relevant activities has been made available in G/TBT/GEN/6.  G/TBT/M/32 
 Page 27 
 
 
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS 
138. No issues were raised under this agenda item.  
IX. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 
139. The Chairman  confirmed that the next regular meeting of the Committee would take place on  
1 July 2004.  He would shortly circulate a communication confirming the dates of the Dedicated 
Session on Conformity Assessment (29 June 2004)  as well the date of the informal meeting 
(30 June 2004).16 
__________ 
                                                      
16 This Communication from the Chairman was faxed to all Members on 30 March 2004.