RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/TBT/M/8
5September 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3564)
Original: English Committee toTechnical Barriers toTrade
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON20JUNE 1997
Chairman: Mr.T.H.M.Tong (Hong Kong)
1. TheCommittee onTechnical Barriers toTrade helditsninth meeting on20June1997.
2. Thefollowing agenda, contained inWTO/AIR/610 wasadopted:
Contents Page
A. Request forObserver Status intheCommittee bytheAfrican, Caribbean
andPacific Group ofStates (ACP); theEuropean FreeTrade Association
(EFTA); andTheOffice International delaVigne etduVin(OIV) 2
B. Technical Working Group oftheCommittee onISO/IEC Guides relating to
Articles 5and6oftheAgreement -Report onSecond Meeting 2
C. Preparation fortheFirstTriennial Review oftheOperation and
Implementation oftheTBTAgreement under Article 15.4 5
D. Statements onImplementation andAdministration oftheAgreement 27
E. Other Business 29G/TBT/M/8
Page2
A. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS INTHE COMMITTEE BYTHE AFRICAN,
CARIBBEANANDPACIFICGROUPOFSTATES(ACP);THEEUROPEANFREETRADE
ASSOCIATION (EFTA); AND THEOFFICE INTERNATIONAL DELAVIGNE ETDU
VIN(OIV)
3. The Chairman drew attention todocument (G/TBT/W/35) listing theinternational
intergovernmental organizations requesting observer status intheCommittee, including theAfrican,
Caribbean andPacific Group ofStates (ACP), theEuropean FreeTrade Association (EFTA) andthe
Office international delavigne etduvin(OIV) whose requests forobserver status werepending. He
noted thattherequests ofthose organizations would betreated onacase-by-case basisandconsidered
against theGeneral Council Guidelines contained inAnnex 3ofdocument WT/L/161, "taking into
account suchfactors asthenature ofwork oftheorganization concerned, thenature ofitsmembership,
thenumber ofWTO Members intheorganization, reciprocity withrespect toaccess toproceedings,
documents andother aspects ofobservership ...". Inrelation tothat,heinformed theCommittee of
arequest forobserver status bytheLatin American Integration Association (ALADI) (G/TBT/W/46).
4. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities supported therequest forobserver status by
ACP, EFTA andOIV. Shethought thattheparticipation ofACP intheCommittee 'swork asan
observer, might helpinproviding information andtechnical assistance toitsMembers. Shenoted that
theactivities ofOIVinthefieldofwine production practices andmethods waswithin thescope of
theAgreement.
5. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recognized theGeneral Council Guidelines concerning
observer status, butnoted thatthere hadbeenon-going discussions under theCouncil forTrade in
Goods foradditional guidance which might beneeded tobetter evaluate therequests. Atthispoint,
herdelegation didnotwishtotakeapermanent decision onadditional observers. However, shewould
beprepared tojointheconsensus togrant observer status toACP andEFTA onanadhoc,meeting
bymeeting basis.
6. Therepresentative ofNorway supported therequest byEFTA. HetooknoteoftheUnited
States 'position andunderstood thatitwasageneral one,pending further guidelines fromtheCouncil
forTrade inGoods. Henoted thatEFTA hadbeengranted observer status intheCommittee ofRules
ofOrigin under theCouncil forTrade inGoods. Thenature ofEFTA 'swork inthedevelopment of
standards andconformity assessment procedures based oninternational standards wasclosely linked
tothework oftheCommittee. Given theimportance ofthecurrent meetings oftheCommittee, he
supported theproposal togrant observer status toACPandEFTA onanadhocbasiswithout prejudice
tothedecisions which would betaken under theCouncil forTrade inGoods.
7. TheCommittee agreed togrant observer status toACPandEFTA onanadhocbasis, pending
further decisions. TheChairman concluded thatfurther consultations would beneeded fortherequest
byOIVandALADI. Therequest forobserver status bytheACP, EFTA, OIVandALADI would
beincluded intheagenda ofthenextmeeting.
B. TECHNICALWORKINGGROUPOFTHECOMMITTEEONISO/IECGUIDESRELATING
TOARTICLES 5AND 6OFTHE AGREEMENT -REPORT ONSECOND MEETING
8. TheTechnical Working Group oftheCommittee onISO/IEC Guides Relating toArticles 5
and6oftheAgreement helditssecond meeting on18June, aimed atassisting theCommittee toconsider
whether itwasnecessary toadopt recommendations regarding relevant ISO/IEC Guides onconformity
assessment procedures. Mr.McMillan waselected astheChairman oftheTechnical Working Group
atthatmeeting.G/TBT/M/8
Page3
9. Hegaveanoralreport totheCommittee. Hesaidthatinaddition toanoralreport tothe
Committee aftereachWorking Group meeting, ithadbeenagreed thatafinalorinterim report would
besubmitted aftertheOctober meeting oftheGroup, sothatitwould betaken intoaccount bythe
Committee inthecontext oftheTriennial Review inNovember.
10. Hesaidthatatthemeeting, anumber ofMembers hadshared theirexperiences intheuseof
ISO/IEC Guides atthenational level andhadexplained theimportance oftheGuides infurthering
thequalityoftheirconformityassessmentbodiesandthereforecontributingtointernationaltradethrough
therecognition oftheirtestresults andcertificates. Mention hadbeenmade inparticular toGuides 22,
25,58,61,62and65.Most interventions hadunderlined thevoluntary nature oftheirimplementation
oftheISO/IEC Guides. Some indicated thattheGuides hadbeentransposed intonational standards,
thusgiving them more importance. Members hadbeeninvited tosubmit relevant information tothe
Secretariat, sothatitcould becompiled indocument G/TBT/W/43 "Practical Experience ofIndividual
GovernmentsandInternationalOrganizationsinUsingInternationalGuidesonConformityAssessment".
11. Hesaidthattherelationship between therelevant ISO/IEC Guides andtheTBTAgreement
hadbeenthecentre ofdebate. TheGroup hadstarted byrecognizing thattheguides ingeneral were
important within thecontext oftheimplementation oftheAgreement. Thevastmajority oftheGroup
hadagreed thatitwould beuseful toreinforce thevisibility oftheguides, overandabove thereferences
which provisions oftheAgreement hadalready made ingeneral terms. Some Members hadexpressed
doubts ontheusefulness andconsequences ofanyendorsement oftheguides bytheCommittee. In
response tosuchdoubts, ithadbeenunderlined thattheguides werealready recognized intheAgreement
andanyendorsement would notgobeyond theterms oftheAgreement. Theguides would remain
asvoluntary documents. However, theadvantage ofanendorsement would betogiveavisible political
signal totheeconomic operators thatthere wasanadvantage inhaving recourse tothose guides
voluntarily. Anumber ofMembers hadexpressed apprehensions about theeffect ofanendorsement
ontheprovisions ofArticle 12(Special andDifferential Treatment ofDeveloping Country Members).
Ithadbeenunderlined thatanendorsement ofcertain guides would notchange theprovisions ofthe
Agreement andArticle 12would continue toapply.
12. Theneedwasgenerally expressed torestrict anyendorsement ofthose Guides which were
ofageneral andhorizontal nature, thereby excluding sectoral/vertical guides forparticular applications.
TheGuides which hadbeenthemostquoted asbeing endorsable werethefollowing: 22,25,39,43,
58,61,62,65.However, thelistwasindicative andsubject toverification byMembers.
13. Thediscussion hadthrown uptwoother issues: (i)thedifficulty ofendorsing guides which
were intheprocess ofbeing revised orwhich were outofdateorwhich hadshortcomings (e.g.
Guide39);and(ii)thequestionofendorsingguideswhichISO/CASCOwastransformingintostandards
(e.g.Guide 25).Thisunderlined theneedforanyendorsement tobealiving document which would
beregularly revisited. Anumber ofMembers hadrequested thattheWTO bemore proactive vis-à-vis
ISO/IEC, suggesting thatitcould/should askISO/IEC toinvestigate andreport onthelevel of
implementationoftheguidesbytheirnationalmembers,toupgradethepresentguidesand/ortocomplete
thepresent series inviewoffacilitating theimplementation oftheAgreement.
14. Mr.McMillan concluded thatwithout prejudice tothepositions oftheMembers whostillhad
apprehensions ontheconsequences ofanendorsement ofsome oralloftheGuides, andsubject to
findingappropriatewordingtocovertheissuesrelatingtotheevolutionoftheGuidesandtherelationship
ofsuchanendorsement withtheprovisions ofArticle 12,thegroup hadaccepted thattheChairman
oftheGroup andtheSecretariat would attempt todraw upaninformal document which could form
thebasis ofarecommendation fortheCommittee, using thelanguage oftheinitial recommendation
oftheTokyo Round TBTCommittee asastarting point. Ithadbeensuggested thatthedocument couldG/TBT/M/8
Page4
contain asuggestion foralistofthemost appropriate guides tobeendorsed, ontheunderstanding
thatallMembers would come tothenextmeeting withtheirsuggestions onthisissue. Moreover,
theGroup hadalsoaccepted toexamine, fordiscussion atthenextmeeting, thequestion ofthedegree
ofproactivity thattheWTO could/should exercise onISO/IEC inthisfield.
15. TheCommittee agreed thatrepresentatives from theISO/CASCO, ILAC andIAFwould be
invited totakepartinthenextmeeting oftheGroup inorder tohelpclarify some ofthemore technical
issues.
16. Therepresentative ofEgypt explained thatherdelegation hadbeenoneofthose thatwas
apprehensive about theendorsement ofcertain ISO/IEC Guides. Shethought thatadditional timewould
beneeded tolookintothelegalimplications ofanendorsement, since theAgreement itselfencouraged
theuseofinternational guides; andtoanalyze theconsequences ofendorsing onlyanumber ofGuides,
andhowitcould effect thebalance ofalltheGuides intheirentirety. Shesaidthatherdelegation
would goalong withthesuggestion about thepreparation ofaninformal document. However, she
emphasized thatoneshould notdiscuss thelanguage ofarecommendation before discussing thetotal
implications oftheissue.
17. Therepresentative ofMexico thought thattherecommendation taken bytheTokyo Round
Committee hadbeen apassive one. TheCommittee should takeaproactive roleinregard to
ISO/CASCO activities which included notonlyseeking information fromCASCO ontheapplication
ofISO/IEC Guides byMembers, butalsotomake recommendations toCASCO, IAForILAC on
issues ofinterest toWTO Members andontheneedforsetting upinternational systems tosupport
mutual recognition ofconformity assessment results, inparticular those regarding accreditation of
certifying bodies. Shesuggested thatitmight beatopictobetaken upbytheCommittee inthecontext
oftheTriennial Review.
18. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthathisdelegation would examine theinformal document and
theirviewwould beexpressed atthenextmeeting oftheWorking Group.
19. Therepresentative ofPakistan emphasized thatatthenextmeeting, theWorking Group would
startdiscussions fromthebasicquestion ofwhether arecommendation oftheCommittee ontheGuides
wasneeded. Itwould depend upon themeaning andimplications ofsuchanendorsement. Inthis
respect, expert opinion fromtheSecretariat andadrafttextoftherecommendation might beneeded
inorder toanalyze itsimplications. Heraised thequestion ofhowtoproceed toprepare forthenext
meeting oftheGroup.
20. TherepresentativeofSingaporeindicatedthathisdelegationwasoneofthosewhohadquestioned
theadvisability ofanendorsement exercise. Hesaidthatitmight bepremature toformulate language
forarecommendation before clarifying itsimplications. Hisdelegation would goalong withthe
suggestion ofpreparing aninformal draftdocument. However, oneshould keepinmind thatsuch
adocument hadnostatus.
21. Therepresentative ofNigeria indicated thathisdelegation hadquestioned theneedforan
endorsement ofcertain ISO/IEC Guides. Henoted thatArticles 2.4,5.4andparagraph FoftheCode
ofGood Practice required Members touseinternational standards orrelevant partsofthem, asabasis
fortheirtechnical regulations, conformity assessment procedures andstandards, except when theywere
ineffective orinappropriate andsubjected toArticle 12.4inrespect tothetechnological andsocio
economic conditions ofdeveloping country Members. However, theAgreement didnotmake reference
toanyparticular guide andtoanymonitoring mechanism forthescrutiny ofthose guides. Hesaid
thatitwasnecessary toclarify theimplications ofsuchanendorsement. Hethought thatinorder to
make recommendations onspecific guides, itmight benecessary fortheCommittee tolookintotheG/TBT/M/8
Page5
details anddisciplines ofthose guides. Heraised concerns onhowrecommendations could bemade
bytheCommittee without Members knowing thecontent ofsuchguides. Henoted thatadecision
hadbeentaken bytheISOthatsome oftheISO/IEC Guides would evolve intostandards andquestioned
itsimplications.
22. TheChairman oftheTechnical Working Group reiterated thattheinformal document tobe
prepared would notbeadraftorproposal. Itwould aimatgiving anindication ofwhatanendorsement
could looklike. Members could, onthatbasis, lookintotheconsequences ofsuchanendorsement.
23. Therepresentative fromtheISOwelcomed theCommittee 'sdecision togrant observer status
toISOinthenextTechnical Working Group meeting. Heinvited anysuggestions fromMembers and
indicated thatISOwould provide anynecessary information tofacilitate theunderstanding oftheexisting
ISO/IECGuidesandthosewhichwereunderpreparation.HeinformedtheCommitteethatISO/CASCO
wasregularly evaluating, ateachofitsmeeting, theneedtoreview itsGuides. TheGeneral Assembly
oftheISOhadformally agreed thatCASCO might inthefuture, convert certain existing ISO/IEC
Guides intointernational standards withaviewtofacilitate international harmonization. Adecision
hadbeentaken toconvert Guide 25(revised) intoaninternational standard, andthetarget datefor
thecompletion ofsuchadocument would beinSeptember 1998. CASCO hadalsodecided toundertake
asurvey oftheadvisability ofrevising Guide 39which wasdueforreview, andtoconvert itintoan
international standard onthebasis ofanEuropean document EN45004.
24. TheChairman noted thattheTechnical Working Group anditsmandate hadbeenestablished
bytheCommittee. Thedocument tobeprepared bytheChairman oftheTechnical Working Group
would beanon-document withthesolepurpose ofillustrating whattheoutcome ofarecommendation
might possibly be.Ifthere were anydecision onwhether toadopt recommendations fortheuseof
relevant ISO/IEC Guides, itwould betaken upbyMembers attheCommittee itself. Hesuggested
thatbefore thenextTechnical Working Group meeting, theChairman ofthatGroup would holdinformal
consultations withinterested delegations onthedraftnon-document, andtheSecretariat would consult
with relevant divisions oftheWTO onthelegal implications ofanendorsement ofcertain
ISO/IEC Guides bytheCommittee.
25. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
C. PREPARATION FOR THE FIRST TRIENNIAL REVIEW OFTHE OPERATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE TBTAGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.4
26. TheChairmandrewattentiontothefactthatunderArticle15.4oftheAgreement,theCommittee
would carry outitsfirsttriennial review oftheoperation andimplementation oftheAgreement no
laterthantheendof1997. TheTriennial Review would beconducted attheCommittee meeting of
12-13 November "with aview torecommending anadjustment oftherights andobligations ofthe
Agreement where necessary toensure mutual economic advantage andbalance ofrights andobligations,
without prejudice totheprovisions ofArticle 12.Having regard, interalia,totheexperience gained
intheimplementation oftheAgreement, theCommittee shall, where appropriate, submit proposals
foramendments tothetextoftheAgreement totheCouncil forTrade inGoods." HesaidthatMembers
hadbeeninvited tosubmit papers, non-papers andproposals forthepurpose oftheReview. Upto
thepresent,papershadbeenreceivedfromthedelegationsoftheEuropeanCommunities(G/TBT/W/36),
Japan (G/TBT/W/39), theUnited States (G/TBT/W/40), Canada (G/TBT/W/41), New Zealand
(G/TBT/W/44), Switzerland (G/TBT/W/45) andSingapore (G/TBT/W/47). Inaddition, inresponse
toarequest bytheCommittee, theSecretariat hadprepared abackground paper onthe"Restrictive
Trade Effects ofStandards, Technical Regulations andConformity Assessment Procedures"G/TBT/M/8
Page6
(G/TBT/W/42) aspartoftheexercise fortheTriennial Review. Delegations werewelcome tosubmit
further papers, non-papers andcomments. However, inviewofthelimited timeavailable untilthe
November meeting, heproposed thatallpapers beprovided assoonaspossible, sothatthere would
beenough timeforMembers toprepare forafruitful discussion.
27. Therepresentative ofSingapore introduced theSingapore paper andsaidthatitwassupported
bytheASEAN countries. Heemphasized thattheCommittee should notprejudge atthisstage, whether
adjustments totherights andobligations oftheTBTprovisions would benecessary. Only witha
thorough review ofthestatus oftheimplementation oftheAgreement, andtheproblems arising thereof,
would Members beinaposition tomake suchjudgement. Thus, theTriennial Review should bedevoted
tomaking athorough examination andstudy ofstatus oftheimplementation oftheAgreement.
28. Therepresentative ofBrazil introduced apaper prepared byhisdelegation which would be
distributed shortly (G/TBT/W/48). HesaidthattheTBTAgreement, afteritsfirstthree years of
existence, hadyielded positive effects. However, certain countries, inparticular developing countries,
continued tohavedifficulties incomplying withspecific obligations. Hethought thatthepriority
objective oftheTriennial Review should betofacilitate thepursuit ofconditions thatwould permit
theimplementation oftheAgreement. Therefore, anyamendments orformal changes totheAgreement
would beinopportune atthisstage.
29. Therepresentative ofIndiaindicated thathisdelegation wasintheprocess ofpreparing apaper
fortheReview anditwould besubmitted shortly.
30. Therepresentative ofNorway supported theview thatthefirstTriennial Review should
concentrateonimprovingtheadministrationandimplementationoftheAgreementratherthanpresenting
proposals forsubstantial amendments oftheAgreement itself. Hesaidthatatthisstage, Norway
considered thefollowing issues important. First, theuseofinternational standards byMembers. In
thisregard, Norway supported asurvey withtheaimofunderstanding thedegree towhich Members
useinternational standards asabasisfortheirtechnical regulations. Henoted thatinthecaseofNorway,
50percentofallnewstandards adopted atthenational level represented theimplementation of
international standards. Second, theneedforeffective andefficient procedures intheadministration
andimplementation oftheAgreement -notonlyinthefieldofconformity assessment butallaspects
oftheAgreement. Hethought thatitwasimportant thattheusers oftheAgreement, (i.e.thecompetent
authorities andeconomic operators inMembers) understood theobligations under theAgreement, such
asmutual recognition, thedifferent aspects ofconformity assessment, thenotion ofunnecessary barriers
totrade andsoon.Third, aneedforaclearer definition oftheconcept of"international standard"
and"unnecessarybarrierstotrade",aswellasothercentralconceptsundertheAgreementwasnecessary.
Fourth, theneedtofurther clarify theobligations concerning conformity assessment procedures was
alsonecessary. Norway, therefore, welcomed thediscussions taking place intheWorking Group on
ISO/IEC Guides relating toArticles 5and6oftheAgreement.
31. Therepresentative ofMexico suggested thatthefirsttaskoftheTriennial Review should be
toreview theimplementation ofexisting provisions without prejudging theneedforanyadjustment
oftheAgreement. Thesecond taskwould betoidentify problems thatmight require recommendations
forpossible adjustment. Thismight relate toafuture work programme oftheCommittee. Withregard
toanyproposals designed foradjustment oftherights andobligations oftheAgreement, herdelegation
proposed thefollowing fourprinciples: (i)theyshould bebased ontheexperience learnt from the
operation andimplementation oftheAgreement thusfar;(ii)theyshould address issues ofgeneral
interest orproblems affecting allMembers; and(iii)theyshould address horizontal issues. Because
ofthegeneralnatureoftheAgreementprovidinghorizontaldisciplinestotechnicalregulations,standards
andconformity assessment procedures, separating disciplines foraspecific sector orarea, suchas
environmental standards, should beavoided. (iv)Itwould benecessary toanalyze howineachproposal,G/TBT/M/8
Page7
onedealtwithArticle 12asstated under Article 15.4. Sheindicated herdelegation 'sintention tosubmit
apaper fortheTriennial Review.
32. TherepresentativeofEgyptdrewattentiontothefactthatArticle15.4includedaphrase“without
prejudice totheprovisions ofArticle 12”.Shesupported theviewexpressed byMexico ontheneed
toanalyze ineachproposal howonedealtwithArticle 12.
33. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities thought thattheobjectives oftheTriennial
Review should betofocus ondefining theimmediate operational measures under theterms ofthe
Triennial Review forthefullimplementation andproper operation oftheAgreement; anddefining
afuture work programme fortheCommittee. Shenoted thattheimplementation oftheAgreement
wasfarfrom satisfactory andthatthefirstaimoftheReview should betoensure abalance ofrights
andobligations ofallMembers under theAgreement. AllMembers should besubject tothedisciplines
oftheAgreement which included theareas ofnotification under Article 15.2ofmeasures taken by
Members toensure theapplication oftheAgreement; theacceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice;
notification procedures fordrafttechnical regulations andprocedures forconformity assessment; the
implementation ofISO/IEC Guides tofacilitate conformity assessments; andtheuseofinternational
standards andthetransparency oftheir use. Referring tothelongterm aimofdefining awork
programme, itshould focus ontechnical regulations andthevarious concepts involved andthe
consequences formarket access. Shethought thatthegoalshould betofacilitate trade ingoods and
toprevent theemergence oftechnical barriers totrade. Inthisrespect, thework programme should
include thefollowing features: (i)conformity assessment procedures -inparticular theconsideration
ofmanufacturers 'selfdeclarations andmutual recognition ofconformity assessment; (ii)international
standards -thenecessary measures toreinforce theimplementation oftheobligations under the
Agreement; and(iii)thereview ofthevarious national, regional andinternational standardizing bodies.
34. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatduring theTriennial Review, theCommittee should
trytoobtain asmuch information aspossible withrespect tomeasures taken byMembers forthe
implementation oftheAgreement. TheCommittee should alsotrytoclarify certain areas ofthe
Agreement.
35. TherepresentativeofNigeriasaidthattheAgreementwasimportant,inparticularfordeveloping
countries exporting products intheglobal market. Henoted thattheAgreement wasrelatively new
andtherewasvariability inlevels ofperformance andadministration oftheAgreement among Members.
TheTriennial Review wasaneducational andcapacity building process forhiscountry andsome other
Members. Forthisreason, itshould notlookintoadditional obligations. Thepriority should beplaced
ontheimplementation andadministration oftheexisting Agreement. Attention should bepaidtothe
issues ofinternational standards, technical assistance andchanging nature ofinternational standards.
Hesupported theviewexpressed byMexico ofhighlighting theissues thathadsystemic implications
andhorizontal importance fortheAgreement. Heasked theChairman onhowworkmight beorganized
inthefuture months relating todiscussions onalltheissues putforward byMembers fortheTriennial
Review.
36. TheChairman drew attention tothefactthattheCommittee would havelessthanfivemonths
forthepreparation oftheTriennial Review andtofinalize itsreport totheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
Heurged Members toholddiscussions aimed atachieving apositive result fortheReview. Hesaid
thatinorder tofacilitate discussions, aninformal compilation ofissues putforward byMembers to-date
hadbeenprepared, andsuggested thattheCommittee proceed withitsdiscussions, following thesub-
items listed intheinformal list.Hereiterated thattheindicative listwhich hadnoformal status would
beupdated andrevised regularly toinclude allproposals andcomments made bydelegations.G/TBT/M/8
Page8
(1) Implementation andAdministration oftheAgreement relating toArticle 15.2
37. TheChairman drew attention toArticle 15.2which states that"each Member shall, promptly
afterthedateonwhich theWTO Agreement enters intoforce forit,inform theCommittee ofmeasures
inexistence ortaken toensure theimplementation andadministration ofthisAgreement." Thisis
aone-time notification byeachMember ofthelegislative, regulatory andadministrative actions ithas
taken toensure thattheprovisions oftheAgreement areapplied. TheCommittee hasadopted Decisions
andrecommendations regarding thestatements (G/TBT/1/Rev.4).
Relevant proposals:
(i) Submission ofstatements byMembers; and
(ii) evaluation ofthemeasures taken toensure implementation andadministration ofthe
Agreement byMembers.
38. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatnotifications under Article 15.2were
important andthatMembers should submit them atthelatest byNovember 1997 when theTriennial
Review would takeplace. ForMembers whohadnotyetdone so,technical assistance should be
provided toenable themtoovercome anydifficulties theymight encounter innotifying themeasures.
With respect totheevaluation ofthenotifications, shethought thatinaddition tothose requirements
contained intheCommittee ’sDecision (G/TBT/1/Rev.4), itwould beuseful toidentify further
requirements thatmight beneeded. Shedrew attention tothefactthattheAgreement provided an
obligation tolimitthenumber ofauthorities entrusted withnotification obligations. Forthisreason,
Members should designate anauthority responsible forapplying notification procedures. Shesuggested
thatsuchinformation should appear inthestatement under Article 15.2andnotifications under Articles
2.9and5.6.
39. Therepresentative ofEgypt suggested thatbefore finding ways andmeans toensure the
submissionofstatementsunderArticle15.2,orevaluatethemeasurestakenbyMembers,theCommittee
should firstlookintowhytheresults ofimplementation hadnotbeensatisfactory, thedifficulties
encountered byMembers andhowsuchdifficulties, ifany,could beaddressed.
40. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesdrewattentiontodocumentG/TBT/W/40whichcontained
herdelegation ’spriorities fortheTriennial Review andreaction tocertain proposals introduced by
otherMembers, including thatproposed byNewZealand onapproaches toregulatory policy. Inrespect
tothesubmission ofstatements byMembers under Article 15.2, sheshared theviewthattheresult
hadnotbeensatisfactory. Only49ofthe131Members hadsubmitted theirstatements, although they
hadbeenreminded oftheirobligations onseparate occasions. Shesupported thesuggestion byEgypt
thattheCommittee should seekthereasons astowhysome Members hadnotsubmitted theirstatements
andthedifficulties faced bythem. Shesaidthatitmight beduetothefactthattheywereuncertain
about thekindofinformation thatshould beprovided. Shenoted thattheUnited States hadbeena
Signatory oftheTokyo Round Agreement andduring theentering intoforce oftheWTO TBT
Agreement, herdelegation hadsubmitted abriefstatement providing information onimplementation.
Itmade reference tothestatement made under theTokyo Round. While thatwasconvenient forearlier
Members toavoid reproducing documents withdetailed information, some oftheunderstanding of
thestatements might havebeenlost.Forthisreason, andtoavoid theburden ofadditional paper work,
herdelegation hadsuggested thatitwould beuseful forMembers togiveoralpresentations tohelp
further elaborate whatwasbehind theirsubmissions. Theprocess might alsobeinstructive forthose
Members whohadnotyetsubmitted theirstatements, clarifying whatinformation wasneeded.G/TBT/M/8
Page9
41. Therepresentative ofMexico, referring toproposals onArticle 15.2, thought thatthefirst
stepshould betoassess andevaluate whathadbeenachieved sofarinterms ofMembers submitting
theirstatements. Shenoted thatafairnumber ofMembers hadnotyetsubmitted theirstatements and
supported theEgyptian proposal thattheCommittee should identify theproblems faced bythose
Members. Shetooknoteoftheproposals made bytheUnited States andtheEuropean Communities
withregard totheassessment ofmeasures. However, shethought thattheywould havetheeffect of
newobligations, astheAgreement didnotcontain anyprovisions fortheassessment orevaluation
ofmeasures taken byMembers toensure theimplementation andadministration oftheAgreement.
Shethought thatafteridentifying problems faced byMembers indischarging existing obligations, a
second stepmight betolookintowhether sucharecommendation waspossible.
42. Therepresentative ofIndia thought thattechnical assistance wasmost important. Without
adequate technical assistance, Members, inparticular developing countries, would notbeabletofulfil
theirobligations ontheimplementation andadministration oftheAgreement, including those relating
tonotifications.
43. Therepresentative ofNewZealand placed importance ontheobligations under Article 15.2
andthought thatMembers could treattheoccasion oftheReview asalearning andinformation exchange
process. Hesupported thepoint made byEgypt thatitwasnecessary tounderstand whytheresult
ofnotifications under Article 15.2hadnotbeensatisfactory. Hesuggested thatitmight bedueto
thefactthatdelegationsfeltuncomfortablewithpresentingtheirviewsonthefullrangeofimplementation
issuesundertheAgreement.Forthisreason,hethoughtMembersshoulduseanyopportunitiesavailable
tolearn from eachother thedifferent steps taken atthenational level toimplement theAgreement
byregulation makers, standardizing bodies andother relevant agencies. Hesawvalue intheproposal
bytheUnited States regarding exchanges ofnational experience, andthought thatitmight notfocus
onparticular legislation, butrather onthevarious administrative andregulatory processes inplace
indifferent Members. Heindicated thathisdelegation would, atanappropriate time, share withother
Members steps taken byhiscountry during theentering intoforce oftheUruguay Round TBT
Agreement, including toprovide information torelevant agencies toensure thatthedisciplines ofthe
Agreement were fullyrespected bytheregulation making system andstandardizing bodies inNew
Zealand.
44. Therepresentative ofColumbia reiterated theimportance ofArticle 15.2andsupported the
viewthattheTriennial Review should focus onensuring notifications byMembers. Heshared the
Egyptian viewonidentifying problems faced byMembers inthisregard. Inrespect totheproposals
ontheevaluation ofmeasures, hequestioned whatshould beevaluated andwhether theTriennial Review
would provide enough timeforsuchassessment. Hesuggested thatitcould belooked at,atalater
date.
45. Therepresentative oftheUnited States clarified thatherdelegation 'sproposal withrespect
toArticle 15.2wassimply toexchange information andexperience among Members onavoluntary
basis withtheintention offurther understanding anddeveloping possible good practices thatcould
serve asmodels fordelegations whomight beseeking assistance. Itwasnotintended tobeanevaluation.
Shethought thatMembers hadopportunities inon-going meetings todrawtheattention oftheCommittee
tospecific problems inthisrespect.
46. Therepresentative ofCanada emphasized theimportance oftheobligations under Article 15.2
andsupported theviewthatinorder toimprove compliance withtheprovisions, theCommittee should
identify difficulties faced bysomeMembers tocomply withArticle 15.2. Hesupported sharing national
experience asawaytoidentify possible problems andtechnical assistance needs.G/TBT/M/8
Page10
(2) Notification Procedures under Articles 2,3,5and7oftheAgreement
47. TheChairman drew attention tothefactthatunder Articles 2.9.2, 2.10.1, 5.6.2 and5.7.1
oftheAgreement, Members should notify other Members through theSecretariat ofdrafttechnical
regulations orconformity assessment procedures notinaccordance withrelevant international standards
orguides, andiftheregulations orprocedures might haveasignificant effect ontradeofotherMembers.
Thenotification obligations apply alsotolocalgovernments ontheleveldirectly below thatofthecentral
government (Articles 3.2and7.2). Henoted thatthose periodic notifications ofchanges intechnical
regulationsandconformityassessmentproceduresbycentralgovernmentsandlocalgovernmentsprovided
opportunities forcomments byother Members, todiscuss thecomments upon request, andtotake
those comments andresults ofdiscussions intoaccount.
Relevant proposals:
(i) Notification obligations ofMembers andlocalgovernments ontheleveldirectly below
thatofthecentral government inMembers; and
(ii) notification procedures toensure opportunities forcomments byother Members.
48. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities drewattention tothefactthatfewnotifications
hadbeenmadeunderArticles3and7ofdrafttechnicalregulationsandconformityassessmentprocedures
prepared bylocal governments inMembers. Shethought thatitwould improve theunderstanding
ofthesituation ifMembers would indicate totheCommittee anylocal government bodies intheir
territories which were authorized toadopt regulatory provisions.
49. Shestressed theimportance ofnotifying technical regulation atthedraftstage before adoption
toensure opportunities forcomments byother Members. Shesuggested thatitwould beappropriate
forthetextofthedraft regulation andthetranslation ortranslated summary (inoneoftheWTO
languages) ofrelevant documents tobeattached tothenotification senttotheSecretariat, sothatthe
deadline laiddown forcomments could berespected. Sherecalled thattheCommittee hadrecommended
a60dayperiod forcomments, andsuggested thatthe60daysshould becounted fromthedateofthe
publication ofnotifications bytheSecretariat.
50. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatthe60daycomment period should becounted
following thepublication ofanotification bytheSecretariat within 10daysofitsreceipt. Concerning
thenotification format, sheproposed thefollowing additional information tobeprovided byMembers:
(i)under item6,amore detailed summary describing thedraft technical regulation orconformity
assessment procedure, including themain points ofthedraft; and(ii)inaddition tothename ofthe
authority responsible fornotification, thename oftheauthority responsible forthedraft, ifdifferent,
andaddresses ofallrelevant authorities. Shesaidthattherighttoraisequestions ormake comments
should beaccompanied bytherighttoreceive replies tothose questions orcomments fromthenotifying
Member before thedraftwasadopted. TheCommittee should alsoinvestigate howaprocedure would
operate (similar tothatunder Article 18.7oftheAgriculture Agreement) sothatother Members could
issueacounter-notification when aMember failed tofulfilitsnotification obligation. Shethought that
decisions andrecommendations fornotification procedures should bearrived atwithin theframework
oftheTriennial Review.
51. Therepresentative ofEgypt thought thatitwould benecessary tohaveastock taking exercise
toobtain anoverview ofhowMembers wereimplementing theexisting notification obligations. She
supported theproposals thatthetranslation ortranslated summary ofadraftregulation beattached
tothenotification when senttotheSecretariat. Shethought thatitwould ensure transparency and
facilitate other Members wishing tomake comments.G/TBT/M/8
Page11
52. Therepresentative ofJapan recalled thathisdelegation hadraised their concern withthe
increasing number ofnotifications providing aperiod forcomment shorter thanwhatwasstipulated
intheAgreement orrecommended bytheCommittee. Hethought thatbefore taking anyadditional
steps, itwould bebetter fortheCommittee toseekwaystoensure theproper observation oftheexisting
obligations. Referring totheproposal onthe"attachment oftexttonotification", hesaidthatthe
Committee should lookintoitcarefully, since there wasnoinformation onhowmany notifications
were actually looked intoandwithrequests being made forfurther information byother Members,
itwasdifficult toevaluate thecosteffectiveness ofsuchaproposal. Inaddition, theproposal related
totranslation problems which could beasensitive issue forhisdelegation.
53. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported thecomments made byJapan questioning
whether itwasnecessary toaddtotherecommendations already made bytheCommittee on60days
ofcomment period. Shethought theCommittee should beprudent when considering additional
recommendations. However, shestressed theimportance ofnotifications being submitted andissued
asquickly aspossible sothatthetimeavailable forcomments would notbeshortened. Shedrew
attention totherelevant recommendations made bytheCommittee (page 13ofG/TBT/1/Rev.4) that
"anotification should bemade when adraftwiththecomplete textofaproposed technical regulation
orprocedures forassessment ofconformity isavailable andwhen amendments canstillbeintroduced
andtaken intoaccount".
54. Therepresentative ofSingapore saidthatasnotification obligations intheTBTAgreement
wereamong themostextensive ofallWTO Agreements, theCommittee should notseektointroduce
moretransparency provisions. Instead, thefocus should betoensure theproper andfullimplementation
oftheexisting transparency provisions. Timely notification ofproposed technical regulations, standards
andconformity assessment procedures attheirdrafting stage wasessential toensuring transparency.
TheCommittee should giveimpetus tosuchtimely notification.
(3) Code ofGood Practice forthePreparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards -Annex 3
oftheAgreement
55. TheChairmannotedthatitwasanobligationunderArticle4forcentralgovernmentstandardizing
bodies toaccept andcomply withtheCode ofGood Practice. Members shalltakesuchreasonable
measures asmaybeavailable tothemtoensure thatlocalgovernment, non-governmental andregional
standardizing bodies accept andcomply withtheCode.
Relevant proposals:
(i) Acceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice bystandardizing bodies;
(ii) coordination ofactivities among standardizing bodies atvarious levels; and
(iii) provision onequivalence parallel tothatofArticle 2.7oftheAgreement.
56. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatEgypt wasoneofthefirstcountries which hadaccepted
theCode ofGood Practice andwould encourage other Members todoso.However, sheadded that
theacceptance oftheCode should bewithout prejudice toMembers 'views onthecoverage ofthe
Agreement onnon-product related processes andproduction methods. Shethought thatcoordination
ofactivities among standardizing bodies atvarious levels wasimportant andsupported theproposal
concerning equivalence ofstandards. ShesaidthattheCommittee should lookintoextending the
applicability ofArticle 2.7totheCode ofGood Practice andthought thatitwould serve asagood
basis forbetter coordination andharmonization ofactivities among standardizing bodies.G/TBT/M/8
Page12
57. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatherdelegation placed importance
ontheacceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice bystandardizing bodies. Shethought thatitrelated
tothebalance ofrights andobligations among Members. Shesaidthatupuntilthepresent timethe
results hadnotbeensatisfactory, andsubstantial progress should bemade inthecontext oftheTriennial
Review. Shesuggested thatinthecourse oftheexercise, itwould beuseful tohearexplanation from
Members onwhystandardizing bodies within theirterritory hadnotyetaccepted theCode asrequired
under Article 4.Shequoted fromtheCanadian paper which stated thatstandards although voluntary
innature, could havetraderestrictive effects. Inthelightofthesituation, shethought thatthepriority
oftheCommittee should betoensure theacceptance oftheCode aswidely aspossible, before holding
discussions onpossible newprovisions onequivalence ofstandards.
58. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland supported theEuropean Communities 'proposal onMembers
providing reasons fornon-acceptance oftheCode. Shesuggested thatinorder tohelpensure the
acceptance oftheCode, Members could provide alistincluding allstandardizing bodies within their
territories, sothatthelistcould becompared withtheonecontaining bodies which hadaccepted the
Code. Shethought thatsuchdecisions andrecommendations oftheCommittee should bearrived at
within theframework ofthefirstTriennial Review.
59. Therepresentative ofIndia supported theview expressed byEgypt concerning theCode of
Good Practice. Asregard equivalence, hethought thatwhile equivalence wasaprecursor tomutual
recognition, ISOstandards could notipsofacto beconsidered forthepurpose, duetotheirlackof
internationalcharacter(fewdevelopingcountries,especiallysmallandmediumsizeenterprisesexporters,
could participate inthestandard making process) andtheabsence of"consensus" asunderstood inthe
WTO.
60. Therepresentative ofNewZealand supported theproposals ongreater encouragement forthe
acceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice bystandardizing bodies, andforthecommunication among
standardizing bodies atvarious levels. Hesuggested thattheCommittee could consider howitwould
encourage strengthening cooperation andcoordination ofactivities among allstandardizing bodies,
including international standardizing bodies, inthisregard.
61. Hesupportedtheideaofequivalenceofstandardsandsuggestedtwosituationswheretheconcept
could beapplied: (i)inthecasewhere adomestic standard derived from, orinpartfrom, international
standards, there should beprocedures atthenational leveltorecognize thatthedomestic standard and
thatofother countries 'wereseeking similar objectives because ofthecommon derivation assetout
intheinternational standards; and(ii)incasewhere norelevant international standard existed, there
should beprocedures foracountry torecognize andaccept thatastandard/standards applied inanother
country/other countries could meettheirownnational objectives. Inorder toaccept other Members '
standards asequivalent, itwould benecessary toestablish streamlined procedures ineachMember
allowing fortheidentification ofinstances where national objectives could beachieved bydifferent
standards ofother Members.
62. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthattheCode ofGood Practice wasapartoftheAgreement
anditwasimportant forMembers toaccept it.Sheshared thestatements made byother delegations
oncoordinationofstandardizingbodies.Sheexpressedherdelegation'sinterestintheCanadianproposal
onequivalence ofstandards. Shesaidthatfurther considerations would begiven toitandwould be
reflected intheforthcoming Mexican paper. TheMexican View ontheissue wasnotjustamatter
oftransferring Article 2.7totheCode ofGood Practice, butrather tolookintorevising thewording
oftheprovision.G/TBT/M/8
Page13
63. TherepresentativeofSingaporethoughtthatitwouldbeusefulfortheCommitteetocontemplate
formulating provisions similar toArticle 2.7(equivalency fortechnical regulations) forinclusion in
theCode ofGood Practice.
64. Therepresentative ofBrazil, referring totheissue ofequivalency under Article 2.7,thought
thatinthecaseoftechnical regulations, equivalency wasanadequate formofharmonization, ifsimilar
objectives existed. However, inthecaseofstandards which normally consisted oftechnical aspects,
compliance withinternational standards should always bepursued. Inthecaseofeco-labelling
programmes/schemes, theCommittee could explore waystoaddress theissueofequivalency asaway
ofpreventing theuseofthose practices astrade barriers.
65. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisdelegation realized theimportance oftheacceptance
oftheCode ofGood Practice. However, hethought thatthere wasnoneedtoqualify theacceptance
assuggested byEgypt, given thattheCode wasgeneric totheAgreement rather thantheissue raised
byEgypt. Thiswasbothwithrespect totheformal aspect ofaccepting theCode ofGood Practice
aswellasthesubstantive aspects ofimplementing theprovision oftheCode. Concerning "equivalence
ofstandards", hesaidthathisdelegation 'sposition contained intheCanadian paper wasclearonthe
needforaparallel provision tothatcontained inArticle 2.7.Hetookintoaccount theBrazilian comment
thatequivalency wasasecond bestsolution nexttotheuseofinternational standards. However, in
some situations, asecond bestsolution might beneeded.
66. Therepresentative ofJapan stressed theimportance ofacceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice
bystandardizing bodies andthatstandard development processes should reflect opinions ofinterested
parties. Coordination ofstandardizing bodies atvarious level, including international, regional and
national levels, wasuseful toeliminate duplication ofwork andshorten theduration ofstandard
development. Headded thattransferring standardization work from onestandardizing body to
international standardizing bodies should be,inprinciple, preferable.
67. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities supported theJapanese proposals withrespect
tointernational standards andtheroleofinternational standardizing bodies, andsuggested thattheissue
should betreated asoneoftheitems inthefuture work programme oftheCommittee. Improved
coordination ofstandardizing bodies would strengthen thestandardizing roleasawhole. Shedrew
attention toacooperation formula developed inEurope withinternational standardizing bodies (the
European standardizing bodies CEN andCENELEC withISOandIEC)andsaidthatitshould provide
abasis forworking outaharmonized solution toproblems attheworld level. Shesuggested thatit
would beuseful toobtain information onhowthose international standardizing bodies cooperated with
other regional standardizing bodies. Improved coordination ofstandardizing bodies should aimnot
onlytoavoid duplication ofactivities, butalsotorespect thehierarchical situation onstandards
worldwide.
68. Referringtotheconceptofequivalency,shethoughtthatthesuggestionwastempting.However,
inreality itmight becontentious anddifficult toimplement. Shedrew attention totheEuropean
Communities 'experience andsaidthatinorder toensure harmonization, theEuropean Communities
didnotbaseitself onnational equivalence, butrather sought todevelop aharmonized approach with
aviewtoeliminating divergences innational provisions. Shethought thatinamultilateral context,
itwould bedifficult toachieve whathadnotbeenpossible ataregional level. Herdelegation gave
priority tointernational standards rather thanperusing equivalence ofstandards.
69. Therepresentative ofArgentina recognized theneedtoencourage theacceptance oftheCode
ofGood Practice. However, hethought theproposals made bytheEuropean Communities and
Switzerland, bywayofposing questions tostandardizing bodies which hadnotaccepted theCode asG/TBT/M/8
Page14
totheirreason fornon-acceptance, would create additional burdens tothose bodies. Hesuggested
thatbefore posing suchquestions tostandardizing bodies, theCommittee should seektoexplain to
standardizing bodies thebenefits theywould gainfrom joining theCode. Thatcould betaken upin
theform ofadocument prepared bytheSecretariat orbydelegations. Heexpressed interest inthe
Canadian proposal onequivalence ofstandards andsaidthathisdelegation didnothaveastrong opinion
onthat,while recognizing thatequivalence wasthesecond bestsolution.
70. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported thesuggestion made byArgentina toinform
standardizing bodies oftheadvantage ofaccepting theCode soastoprovide them theincentive to
doso.Shenoted thatnostandardizing bodies intheUnited States hadaccepted theCode, although
therewasnoproblem forthemtocomply withtheobligations under theAgreement andtherehadbeen
extensive discussions inhercountry ontheobligations under theAgreement andtheobligations for
standardizing bodies tonotify theiracceptance oftheCode.
71. Therepresentative ofSingapore thought thattheproliferation ofvoluntary standards could
haveapotential adverse impact ontrade, andsuggested thattheCommittee could ascertain ways to
enhance thetransparency ofstandards applied bynon-governmental standardizing bodies.
(4) International Standards
72. TheChairman drew attention toArticles 2.4and5.4oftheAgreement andparagraph Fof
theCode ofGood Practice which states thatMembers should userelevant international standards and
guides, iftheyexisted ortheircompletion wasimminent, asabasis fortheirtechnical regulations,
conformity assessment procedures andstandards, except when suchinternational standards ortheir
relevant parts would beanineffective orinappropriate means forthefulfilment ofthelegitimate
objectives pursued, orotherwise (under Article 12.4) notappropriate tothedevelopment, financial
andtrade needs ofdeveloping country members.
Relevant proposals:
(i) Strengthening andmonitoring theuseofinternational standards byMembers;
(ii) procedures andactivities ofinternational standardizing bodies;
(iii) definition ofinternational standards;
(iv) potential trade distorting impact ofcertain international standards; and
(v) coordination andcooperation oftheWTO/TBT Committee andinternational
standardizing bodies.
73. TherepresentativeofJapannotedtheimportanceofpromotingthealignmentofnationalstandards
withinternational standards. However, there existed anumber ofinternational standards withwhich
national standards could notbealigned duetothefactthattheydidnotreflect up-to-date technological
information, nordidtheyappropriately meettherealmarket needs. Hesaidthatsuchinternational
standardsshouldberevisedandsuggestedthatitwasnecessarytodevelopamechanismsothatMembers,
when recognized theexistence ofinappropriate international standards, could proactively request their
national standardizing bodies toinform relevant international standardizing bodies oftheneedfor
revision. Hedrew attention toalistprepared byhisdelegation containing 20international standards
which hadbeenrecognized tobeout-of-date. HesaidthattheJapanese Industrial Standards Committee
(JISC), theJapanese national body ofISO/IEC, hadproposed therevision ofthose standards tothe
ISOandIEC.G/TBT/M/8
Page15
74. Therepresentative ofMexico expressed interest intheproposals andcomments made regarding
thedefinition ofaninternational standard. Shethought thattheCommittee should startbyclarifying
thedefinition ofaninternational standardizing body, before moving ontoreview what itmeant by
aninternational standard inWTO language. Adefinition ofaninternational standardizing bodyshould
bemadeinthenatureofeffectiveparticipationofWTOMembersinbothdecisionmakingandindrawing
upstandards inthatbody.
75. With respect toreviewing theprocedures andactivities ofinternational standardizing bodies,
herdelegation would seekmeasures providing allWTO Members better proactive access toparticipate
indiscussions andtheelaboration ofinternational standards. Concerning monitoring theuseof
international standards byMembers, sheproposed thattheCommittee should firsthaveanexchange
ofviews ontheextent onwhich Members wereusing existing international standards, notwithaview
toscrutinizing other Members 'legislation, buttoidentify possible problems encountered byMembers,
theirauthorities, national standardizing bodies andindustries inusing international standards. This
might helpfinding solutions sothatinternational standards could beproperly applied.
76. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthattheTriennial Review would provide
Members withopportunities tolookintointernational standards because oftheirimportance, theirrole
intheAgreement andinstrengthening future work oftheCommittee. Herdelegation 'sproposals
contained indocument G/TBT/W/36 aimed atimproving transparency inthisfield. Theyalsoincluded
theadvisability ofdeveloping therelationship between theWTO andinternational standardizing bodies,
andtoestablish certain requirements withrespect tostandardization attheinternational levelsothat
international standards could beproperly implemented byMembers. These requirements related to
priority andtransparency ofwork ininternational standardizing bodies. Concerning theuseof
international standards byMembers, herdelegation proposed tointroduce provisions formonitoring
proceduresbasedonexperiencegainedintheframeworkoftheAgreementontheApplicationofSanitary
andPhytosanitary Measures (SPS). Regarding thedefinition ofaninternational standard, shesuggested
that,inview ofthecomplexity ofthisissue, itcould bedealt withintheCommittee 'sfuture work
programme, probably withaspecial working party being established.
77. Therepresentative ofSingapore noted thattechnical regulations established inaccordance with
international standards were"rebuttably presumed" nottocreate unnecessary obstacles tointernational
trade. Inother words, technical regulations based oninternational standards werepresumed tobetrade
neutral.Neverthelesscertaininternationalstandardscouldhaveadverseeffectsontrade.TheCommittee
should,therefore,becautiousabouttheproposalstoincorporatesuchstandardsintotheTBTAgreement.
Heproposed thatathorough study ofthepotential trade distorting impact ofthese standards should
beundertaken before anydecision bemade toincorporate themintotheAgreement. While recognizing
theutility ofusing international standards forthepurpose ofharmonization, theCommittee should
becognisant ofthedifficulties thatdeveloping countries could haveinimplementing these standards.
Inthisconnection, Committee Members should takenoteofArticle 12.4.
78. Therepresentative ofEgypt noted thatthere wasageneral recognition oftheimportance of
international standards. However, shequestioned ifthere wasacommon viewofwhatitmeant by
aninternational standard andthought thatitwasimportant tofirstclarify itsdefinition. Regarding
monitoring theuseofinternational standards byMembers, shequestioned iftherewereanymonitoring
requirements under theAgreement orifitwould constitute additional obligations andburdens for
Members. Shesupported theproposals made bySingapore concerning theadverse trade effects of
certain international standards, andoncloser cooperation andcoordination oftheCommittee with
international standardizing bodies. Herdelegation recognized theimportance ofaproactive WTO
involvement ininternational standardization, andinthisregard, shesuggested thattheCommittee couldG/TBT/M/8
Page16
lookintothepossibility ofdeveloping proactive procedures. Shethought thatinternational standardizing
bodies should takeintoaccount theon-going discussions intheWTO onthismatter.
79. Therepresentative ofIndia supported theproposal todevelop amore articulate definition of
international standards. Hesaidthat,inthatrespect, itwasnecessary totakeintoaccount their
effectiveness orotherwise forthefulfilment oflegitimate objectives pursued, likeclimatic and
geographical factors, orfundamental technological problems. Itwasnecessary totakeintoaccount
thatthepurpose ofstandardization wastoimprove theefficiency ofproduction, tofacilitate international
trade, toensure thatunnecessary trade barriers were notcreated, andtotransfer technology from
developed todeveloping country Members. Henoted thatintheWTO, standardization processes had
toberestricted tostandards asapplicable toproducts orrelated processes andproduction methods.
80. Therepresentative ofCanada supported thesuggested approach tobring concrete examples
ofinternational standards withwhich Members encountered problems. Hewelcomed theJapanese
delegation 'scontribution ofbringing theirexperience totheattention oftheCommittee. Hethought
thatthesediscussions would provide theCommittee withtherelevant knowledge ofMembers 'national
practices andhowinternational standardizing bodies developed standards.
81. Regarding procedures andactivities ofinternational standardizing bodies andcoordination and
cooperation oftheCommittee withinternational standardizing bodies, hethought thefirststepwould
betoinvite relevant international bodies tomeetings oftheCommittee inorder toincrease Members '
awareness ofactivities inthose bodies. Healsostated theimportance ofpromoting coordination and
cooperation atthenational level. Hepointed outthathisdelegation benefited from thepresence of
experts from theStandards Council ofCanada sothatitcould beinformed oftheCanadian system
andpractices. Heencouraged other delegations todothesameandbenefit fromtheirnational experts.
82. Referringtothedefinitionofaninternationalstandard,hisexperiencewiththeCanadianbusiness
communities demonstrated thatindustries knew whatinternational standards were. Henoted thatmost
international standardizing bodies comprised thesame Members astheWTO. Hethought thatthe
Committee should becareful when discussing thismatter sothatitwould notappear tobequestioning
thework ofsome other national bodies, including those inthevoluntary sector. Herecognized that
delegations hadaroleinproviding general policy direction andadvice. However, afinelinecould
bedrawn between providing suchgeneral policy direction andadvice, andquestioning thework of
other national bodies thattheCommittee should respect.
83. Therepresentative ofPakistan, referring tothedefinition ofinternational standards and
international standardizing bodies, thought thatthedefinition ofaninternational body orsystem as
contained inAnnex 1oftheAgreement: "Body orsystem whose membership isopentotherelevant
bodies ofatleastallMembers" might notbeenough, andthatthenotion ofeffective participation should
beincluded inthedefinition.
84. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported theimportance ofeffective participation and
transparency ininternational standardizing bodies. Sheagreed thatthedefinition ofinternational
standardizing body ascontained inAnnex 1might notbesufficient. However, shereiterated the
importance ofthebasic obligations under theAgreement forusing international standards.
85. Therepresentative ofBrazil noted thattheAgreement acknowledged theimportance ofthe
useofinternational standards tofacilitate international trade. Therefore, itwould beimportant tofind
ways toencourage andtostrengthen theiruse. More Members should beencouraged toaccept and
comply withtheCode ofGood Practice forthePreparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards.
Thiswould helpstrengthen theprocess ofinternational standardization.G/TBT/M/8
Page17
86. Therepresentative ofNewZealand agreed thatitwasimportant toconsider thedefinition of
international standards. Henoted theexistence ofanumber ofstandards which werenotrecognized
asinternational standards because theyhadnotbeenadopted byinternational standardizing bodies,
although theywere commonly usedininternational trade.
87. Heexpressed interest infurther proposals concerning thenotion ofeffective participation in
international standardization. Hesuggested linking discussions onthesub-items of"Strengthening
andmonitoring theuseofinternational standards byMembers" and"Potential trade distorting impact
ofcertain international standards". Heexpressed interest intheJapanese proposal, listing out-dated
international standards, andthought ituseful forfocusing discussions inthisarea. Hesuggested that
itmight beuseful toadopt anegative listing ofinternational standards which werenotusedsoasto
highlight where theproblems were inthisregard.
88. Herecalled paragraphs 33-35 oftheNewZealand paper which recognized thesignificant trade
impact inusing international standards astechnical regulations incertain contexts. Henoted that
Article 2.4oftheAgreement encouraged Members toadopt international standards ortherelevant
parts ofthem asthebasis foratechnical regulation. Heemphasized thatinorder tominimize trade
barriers, onlythepartofaninternational standard which wasnecessary toachieve legitimate objectives
should beusedtoestablish atechnical regulation. Voluntary standards provided animportant foundation
fortechnical regulations inmany sectors. However, because theyreflected awiderange ofperspectives
andneeds, theymight contain requirements notessential tofulfilthelegitimate objectives oftechnical
regulations. Forthisreason, calling uptheentirety ofvoluntary standards inmandatory technical
regulations could havetheeffect ofimposing unnecessary costsonbusinesses andcreating unnecessary
obstacles totrade.
89. Therepresentative ofNigeria shared theviewexpressed bySingapore andNewZealand that
aconnection oftheutility ofinternational guides andstandards asabasis fortechnical regulations,
conformity assessment procedures andstandards ofMembers should notbeautomatic. Henoted that
under Article 2.4,Members wereencouraged toadopt international standards ortheirrelevant parts
when theywould beeffective. Aspointed outbyMexico, theobligation wassubject totheexceptions
laiddown under Article 12.4fordeveloping country Members. Hewelcomed theexperience sharing
bytheJapanese delegation andsupported theviewthatitcould beinappropriate toadopt international
guides orstandards under certain national circumstances orduetothefactthatsome ofthem were
obsolete.
90. Therepresentative ofSingapore saidthattheCommittee should consider procedures toprovide
forcloser coordination andcooperation oftheCommittee andinternational standardizing bodies.
91. Therepresentative ofISO,responding tocomments made bytheJapanese delegation concerning
obsoleteinternationalstandards,notedthateachofthe10,500ISOstandardsandthe3,000IECstandards
wassubmitted every fiveyears (more frequently, ifneeded) toareview bytheirmembers todetermine
whether itshould beconfirmed, revised orwithdrawn. However, itcould happen insome cases, that
ISOmembers hadalackofinterest anddidnotanswer theenquiries. Thiscould result inobsolete
standards remaining intheISOportfolio. TheISOTechnical Management Board supervising the
technical programme ofISOwelcomed theJapanese Industrial Standards Committee 'slistofout-dated
standards. Aninvestigation wasbeing conducted intheTechnical Committees responsible forthe
preparation andupdating ofthose standards andtheresults would bereviewed atthemeeting ofthe
Technical Management Board inSeptember 1997. Heinvited WTO Members toprovide further
information onISOstandards which theyconsidered obsolete.G/TBT/M/8
Page18
92. Referring tothedefinition ofterms concerning standardization andrelated activities, hedrew
attention toISO/IEC Guide 2which contained thedefinitions ofinternational standardizing organizations
andaninternational standard. Henoted thatISO/IEC Guide 2(edition 1991) which wasreferred in
Annex 1oftheTBTAgreement hadbeenrevised in1996. Thedefinition ofaninternational standard
given inGuide 2concerned onlyvoluntary consensus standards. However, thedefinition given in
theTBTAgreement concerned bothconsensus andnon-consensus standards. Hewould provide copies
ofISO/IEC Guide 2andfurther information tointerested Members, ifneeded.
(5) Technical Regulations
93. TheChairman recalled paragraph 22oftheCommittee 'sReport fortheSingapore Ministerial
Conference (G/L/122) which stated that"Itisfeltimportant toensure thatathorough examination
ofallaspects oftheTBTAgreement relevant totechnical regulations, standards andconformity
assessment procedures canbecarried outatthetriennial review inorder tostrengthen implementation
oftheexisting disciplines andfurther theAgreement withtheaimoffacilitating trade through more
efficient andeffective regulation."
Relevant proposal:
Guidelines forthepreparation, adoption andreview oftechnical regulations.
94. Therepresentative ofNewZealand considered theissue ofgood regulatory design forthe
development oftechnical regulations akeypriority oftheTriennial Review. Hedrew attention to
theNewZealand paper which attempted toprovide practical guides, aiming toassist allthose involved
indesigning andimplementing technical regulations atthenational leveltofulfiltheirobligations under
theAgreement, while achieving national legitimate objectives. Hethought those guides would help
develop abetter understanding among Members ofthepractical stepsneeded inthepreparation, adoption
andreview oftechnical regulations inaccordance withtherequirements oftheAgreement. Theywould
providethekeyfordevelopingleasttrade-restrictivetechnicalregulationsandsubstantiallyassisteffective
implementation oftheAgreement.
95. Hisdelegation supported thestrategies under theAgreement, encouraging harmonization and
recognition asequivalent technical regulations ofother Members tofacilitate world trade. Those
strategies wereofmostusewhen differences inconditions ofcountries involved werenotsignificant.
However, when conditions weredifferent, itcould bedifficult topursue harmonization andrecognition
ofequivalence. Under suchcircumstances, therequirements under theAgreement forthepreparation,
adoptionandapplicationoftechnicalregulationswouldhavemuchtooffer.Furthermore,harmonization
andrecognition ofequivalence would bemore effective ifnational regulatory approaches reflected
therequirements ofgood regulatory design assetoutintheAgreement.
96. Hesuggested thefollowing twostage process forregulatory authorities toconsider when
contemplating theintroduction ofatechnical regulation. First, toconsider whether aregulation was
needed toaddress theproblem athand. Thisinvolved aconsideration ofthenature andmagnitude
oftheproblem, andoftheoptions which could offermosteffective andleasttrade-restrictive approaches
toachieving theobjectives. Theoptions included: maintenance ofthestatus quo; reliance ongeneral
law; educational programmes; economic instruments, suchastaxes ortradeable property rights;
insuranceandliabilitylaws;codesofconduct/practice;industryself-regulation;ortechnicalregulations.
Second, ifaregulation wasrequired, andatechnical regulation wasdeemed tobethemosteffective
formofregulation, thetechnical regulation mustbedeveloped inaccordance withalldisciplines outlined
intheAgreement. Itmust reflect theprinciples ofnational andmost favoured nation treatment; it
mustbenomore trade restrictive thannecessary; itmustbemonitored andreviewed asnecessary;
itmustreflect international standards where appropriate; itmustbeperformance based (andrecognizedG/TBT/M/8
Page19
asequivalent other means ofachieving thedesired outcome); itsdevelopment must betransparent
andconsultative; andthecompliance procedures adopted must notcreate unnecessary obstacles to
trade andmust betheminimum necessary toprovide confidence.
97. Therepresentative ofJapan welcomed theNewZealand paper. Hethought thepaper provided
comprehensive andsystematic approaches forthepreparation oftechnical regulations intheleasttrade
restrictive way. Hesaidthattheimplementation ofArticle 2.4concerning harmonization oftechnical
regulations through theuseofinternational standards, while important, could bedifficult, taking into
account thecostandeffectiveness. Inorder topromote harmonization, thecoordination between
government authorities preparing technical regulations andnational standardization bodies wasessential.
Itwasrecognized thatdifferent authorities might prepare different technical regulations withsimilar
technical contents. Thissituation wasatypical example ofduplicating work among government
authorities andwasnotpreferable. Ifnational standards werealigned torelevant international standards
andcovered thetechnical contents required bytechnical regulations, technical regulations could use
therelevant national standards asreference. Inother words, national standards could beusedasa
softinfrastructure commonly usedbytechnical regulations.
98. Heintroduced theJapanese government action planforeconomic structure reform which was
recently adopted bytheJapanese Cabinet. Theaction planexpressed thatexisting Japanese industrial
standards (JIS)would bereviewed inorder tomeettheneeds ofnational standardization body, relevant
ministers andagencies. Thiswould promote harmonization between JISandtechnical regulations,
inother words, topromote thereference ofJISbytechnical regulations. Inthiscontext, hisdelegation
proposed thefollowing recommendation fortheconsideration ofother Members: "Inorder topromote
theimplementation ofArticle 2.4oftheTBTAgreement, coordination between governmental authorities
andnational standardization bodies isessential. Inthisregard, authorities should usenational standards
asreference totechnical regulations asfaraspossible when suchnational standards areregarded as
being based upon relevant international standards."
99. Therepresentative ofAustralia supported theNewZealand paper andrecalled thatitwaslargely
based ondiscussions thattookplace atanAPEC Standard andConformance Sub-Committee meeting
heldinMay1997. Shenoted thattheprinciples setoutinthepaper were consist withAustralian
government policy.
100. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported theNewZealand paper. Shethought that
thepaper gaveabroad, comprehensive andpractical perspective totheobligations under theAgreement.
Ithadbeenendorsed within theAPEC andreflected thediscussions thathadtaken place intheOECD
onthebenefit ofregulatory reform toreduce technical barriers totrade. Shethought thatitwas
important toimplement theAgreement andtoensure thatdomestic regulators, standard-developers
andtrade policy officials understood theAgreement. Inthiscontext, thepaper wasconsidered useful
asitoutlined inapractical way, anumber ofitems which were considered tobegood practice for
users oftheAgreement. Sheinvited other Members toconsider theproposals.
101. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitieswelcomedtheNewZealandpaper.Shethought
thatthepaper wasthorough andcould assist andfacilitate better understanding andimplementation
oftheAgreement.
102. Therepresentative ofNewZealand welcomed thecomments made concerning hisdelegation 's
paper andinvited interested delegations fordiscussions before oratthenextmeeting. Henoted the
importance ofimplementing theAgreement, inparticular intheareaoftechnical regulations, given
theirmandatory nature which could havesignificant effects ontrade.G/TBT/M/8
Page20
103. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland supported thepromotion ofharmonization oftechnical
regulations. Herdelegation suggested thattheCommittee should consider thefollowing issues:
(i)identify thevarious existing types ofharmonization, while benefiting fromtheexperience ofprivate-
standard harmonization; and(ii)determine thetypes ofharmonization which would bestmeettheneeds
ofMembers, while avoiding duplication ofthework inother bodies.
(6) Conformity Assessment Procedures
104. TheChairman noted thatunder Article 5.1.2 oftheAgreement, Members should ensure that
theirconformity assessment procedures werenotprepared, adopted orapplied withaviewtoorwith
theeffect ofcreating unnecessary obstacles tointernational trade. Thismeans, interalia,thatconformity
assessment procedures shallnotbemore strict orbeapplied more strictly thanisnecessary togive
theimporting Members adequate confidence thatproducts conform withtheapplicable technical
regulations orstandards. TheAgreement alsoencourages theuseofrelevant international guides or
recommendations forconformity assessment procedures (Article 5.4);toenterintonegotiation forthe
conclusion ofagreements formutual recognition ofresults ofeachother'sconformity assessment
procedures (Article 6);andtoformulate andadopt international systems forconformity assessment
(Article 9).
Relevant proposals:
(i) Effective andefficient procedures;
(ii) guides orrecommendations issued byinternational standardizing bodies;
(iii) international andregional systems forconformity assessment under Article 9ofthe
Agreement;
(iv) mutual recognition agreements under Article 6oftheAgreement, including the
transparency ofsuchagreements under Article 10.7; and
(v) unilateral/Autonomous recognition.
105. Therepresentative oftheUnited States drew attention toArticle 6.4oftheAgreement and
suggested thattheCommittee should make reference andhaveafulldiscussion onthatprovision.
Shethought thatitmight fallwithin thescope ofunilateral recognition andcould bedeveloped into
aconcept similar tothatofmutual recognition.
106. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatwithrespect toconformity assessment systems, itwas
important toprovide technical assistance todeveloping countries todevelop operational procedures.
Before portability ofcertification wasconsidered andcould besuccessfully engendered, theoperation
ofArticle 12should bediscussed.
107. Therepresentative ofHong Kong noted thegrowing concerns about therestrictive tradeeffects
resulting frommultiple testings andconformity assessment procedures. Hesuggested thatMembers
should review thefollowing practices fortrade facilitation: (i)when situations allow, manufacturers '
selfdeclarations should beaccepted; (ii)ifexternal assessment wasdeemed inevitable, Members should
consider arrangements forrecognizing results ofconformity assessments performed bytrading partners;
and(iii)thatunilateral recognition oftestresults andcertificates would beanefficient option.
108. Henoted theemerging interest inconcluding mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) among
Members onabilateral basiswhich wererelevant toArticle 6andother provisions oftheAgreement.G/TBT/M/8
Page21
Hethought thatMembers might wishtoconsider andagree oncertain working criteria which could
giveeffecttothoseprovisions.Hedrewattentiontoparagraph38oftheSecretariatpaper(G/TBT/W/42)
andsaidthatthere wereuseful bench-mark criteria suggested. Hisdelegation supported theproposal
toexplore theideaofdrawing upvoluntary guidelines forMRAs andsuggested thatthefollowing
should beincluded: (i)there should beobjective criteria forthepurpose ofrecognition; (ii)bilateral
MRAs should notbeinward looking. They should pavethewayforamore openarrangement that
other interested parties begiven sufficient opportunity toconclude such agreements ona
non-discriminatory basis; and(iii)suchagreements orarrangements should notexclude products of
thirdparty origin because whatwasatissue should bethequality andcompetence oftheassessment
services rather thantheorigin oftheproducts. Hethought thatthiswasparticularly useful fordeveloping
countries where conformity assessment services might notbeadequate.
109. Therepresentative ofSingapore recognized thatfurther clarification oftheconcepts ofmutual
recognition andequivalency could facilitate theelimination oftrade distortive effects oftechnical
regulation, standards andconformity assessment procedures. Heconcurred with theCanadian
delegation 'sconcerns ontheportability ofcertification. Henoted thattheprovisions fortheconclusion
ofMRAs intheexisting Agreement wasweak andmerely encouraged countries toconclude MRAs
ontheresults ofconformity assessment procedures. Given thecosts associated withthenegotiation
ofbilateral MRAs, hesuggested thatitwould beuseful iftheTriennial Review could attempt to
strengthen theprovisions onMRAs inthefollowing twopossible ways: (i)review ofArticle 6with
aview toaddressing theproblems highlighted above; and(ii)asinthecaseoftheWorking Party
onProfessional Services (WPPS), theCommittee could attempt todraw upvoluntary guidelines for
MRAs.
110. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland referring toeffective andefficient procedures forassessment
ofconformity, saidthatamanufacturer 'sdeclaration ofconformity should betherulerather thanthe
exception because itcould circumvent theproblems ofsome conformity assessment procedures which
industry feltdidnotprovide satisfactory protection fortrade secrets. Shenoted thatatpresent, the
conditions didnotseemrightforageneralized introduction ofmanufacturer 'sdeclarations. However,
anexamination ofconditions necessary fortheuseofamanufacturer 'sselfdeclaration inthesectoral
legislation could behelpful. Thestudy should avoid duplication ofwork withother bodies andshould
include thequestion ofwhymanufacturers 'declarations were possible incertain sectors andnotin
others. Thefollowing issues could beexplored: (i)thesubmission bymanufacturers ofdocumentations
required bynational legislation todemonstrate measures taken toguarantee theconformity ofproducts;
(ii)aneffective system ofproduct liability; and(iii)adequate supervision ofthemarket, including
independent monitoring ofproducts marketed toensure thatrelevant requirements hadbeenmet. She
thought thatthestudy could betaken upasthefuture work programme oftheCommittee.
111. Shedrew attention toArticle 6.1which required Members toensure, whenever possible, that
theresults ofconformity assessment procedures ofother Members wererecognized, provided thatthey
were satisfied thatthose procedures offered anassurance ofconformity withapplicable technical
regulations orstandards equivalent totheirownprocedures. Shesaidthatinorder tomake autonomous
recognitionpossible,thetechnicalcompetenceoftheconformityassessmentbodiesinexportingMembers
must beaccepted. Such competence should beassessed inaccordance withinternational standards.
Forthisreason, themaximum possible useof,orreference to,international standards/guides for
qualifying conformity assessment bodies should beencouraged. Thiswould callforatwo-phase
procedure: (i)theidentification (within theISO/IEC Guides Technical Working Group) ofthepertinent
international standards/guides inthevarious sectors andtheexisting solutions; and(ii)theCommittee
encouraging therecognition ofcompetence ofbodies -andhence thecertificates theyissued -when
thishadbeendemonstrated onthebasis ofinternational standards/guides. TheCommittee should
consider theextent towhich theactivity ofsuchbodies might benefit fromapresumption ofconformity,G/TBT/M/8
Page22
andrelevant decisions andrecommendations should bearrived atwithin theframework oftheTriennial
Review.
112. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatselfdeclaration ofconformity bysuppliers wasingeneral
considered tobetheleasttrade restrictive conformity assessment procedure andshould beconsidered
asfirstchoice forMembers. Hesuggested thatISO/IEC Guide 22should berespected when suppliers
conducted selfdeclaration.
113. Hisdelegation considered international harmonization ofconformity assessment procedures,
including theuseofrelevant ISO/IEC Guides (Guides 22,25,39,58,61,62and65),wasimportant
toreduce technical trade barriers. Henoted thathisgovernment recognizing theimportance ofthe
Agreement, hadrevised theJapanese Industrial standardization law. Decisions hadbeenmade touse
ISO/IEC Guide 65inJapanese Industrial Standards (JIS), andISO/IEC Guides 25and58inthenewly
created laboratory accreditation system.
114. Heintroduced totheCommittee theJapanese Certification System andtheJISMark operated
under JISLawwhich would beeffective on26September 1997. HesaidthatJISmark wasareliable
toolformanufacturers, especially small andmedium sized enterprises (SMEs), todemonstrate that
theirproducts satisfied specifications ofJISandasaresult improve purchasers 'confidence. TheJIS
Marking System wasoperated byresponsible ministers andthelicence ofJISMark could begranted
when afactory completed successfully theassessments ofeachminister. Theassessment procedures
included evaluations onboththefactory 'squality system andtheproduct. Third party private
certification bodies would beintroduced intotheJISMarking System andcould licence JISMarks
ontheirownresponsibility. Relevant ministers would designate certification bodies, including foreign
bodies, iftheymetnecessary therequirements based uponISO/IEC Guide 65.Headded thatinorder
tofacilitate aproducer 'sdeclaration onnon-designated JIS,competent testing laboratories would be
accredited byresponsible ministers andthecriteria would bebased onISO/IEC Guide 25.Foreign
testing laboratories could beaccredited iftheyfulfil thecriteria.
115. Therepresentative ofNewZealand supported theviewthatamanufacturer 'sdeclaration based
onISO/IEC Guide 22wasapreferred option forconformity assessment procedures compared tothe
more comprehensive third parties certification ortesting, andhigher level intervention. However,
thiskindofselfdeclaration would stillrequire certain action. Henoted thatthere existed practices
which would allow products having mettherelevant requirements ofregulations tobeputinthemarket
place anditwasuptotheregulators toundertake thenecessary surveillance toensure compliance.
116. Regarding reducing trade barriers created bythird party certifications, hethought thatthe
common practice ofunilateral/autonomous recognition waspreferable tomutual recognition agreements
(MRAs). Oneshould notcreate toomuch expectation withrespect toMRAs between governments
because oftheintensive work andtimeneeded fortheirnegotiation andofthefactthatnotmany of
themhadyetbeenconcluded. Heinformed theCommittee thathisgovernment asaresult ofanalmost
sixyearlongnegotiation withtheEuropean Communities hadconcluded anMRA. Thiswasexpected
tobesigned andwould create benefits forbothparties. However, there existed bothuseful andless
useful features, including theoneconcerning rules oforigin asindicated byHong Kong.
117. Inthecontext ofcompetent bodies, henoted thatthereexisted intheprivate sector, numerous
national, regional orinternational bodies andaccreditation systems (such asILAC andIAF) which
accredited conformity assessment bodies andrecognized theircompetence. Hequestioned thereason
foradditional confidence requirements byindividual government forthose bodies which hadalready
demonstrated theircompetence andhadbeenaccredited bydifferent accreditation systems. Hethought
thatagovernment should dotheminimum overandabove whathadalready beeninplace under the
accreditation systems.G/TBT/M/8
Page23
118. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidthatdifferent forms ofconformity assessment procedures might
beusedaslongastheirresults could beaccepted byother parties. Henoted thedifferent technological
background anddevelopment inMembers andthought thatitwasmore important fortheCommittee
tolookintothepossibility oftheacceptance ofresults bydifferent conformity assessment procedures
rather thantodefine thekindofconformity assessment procedures tobeused. Inorder toreduce costs
andfacilitate trade, theprinciple of“onestandard, onetest,onetime”should bepursued tofacilitate
trade. Thisprinciple implied complex conditions concerning mutual reliance andconfidence between
Members which, inmost cases, demands highlevels oftechnical competence. Asaresult, theuse
ofcommon procedures suchasrelevant ISO/IEC Guides would benecessary toachieve confidence
between Members. Hethought thatitwould beuseful fortheCommittee tomake recommendations
fortheuseofISO/IEC Guides, asinthecaseoftheTokyo Round Committee. Henoted theexistence
ofdifferent forms ofConformity Assessment procedures, including manufacturers 'selfdeclarations
ofconformity. However, itwould demand ahighleveldevelopment ofconformity assessment systems
andwould depend onthemeans available toensure effective andadequate liability ofsuppliers that
would bedifficult attheinternational level. Henoted thatArticle 6.1.1 andAnnex 1oftheAgreement
referredtoaccreditationofcertifyingbodiesandlaboratoriesaspartofconformityassessmentprocedures.
Hethought thattheCommittee could initiate adeeper analysis ofthisissue, taking intoaccount the
increasing importance ofaccreditation systems atthenational andinternational level.
119. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthatherdelegation considered conformity assessment
procedures animportant issue andwould submit detailed proposals onit.Shebroadly agreed with
theconcerns expressed andseveral oftheproposals made byotherMembers, inparticularly those which
would provide solutions totheproblems ofcertification. Shesaidthatitwasimportant toensure that
existing standards andnational standards adopted onthebasis ofinternational standards wereuseful
incertification. Sheexpressed interest withtheinput fromtheISOandISO/QSAR andhowtheycould
contribute tosolving theproblems ofcertification, inparticularly withrespect tosmall andmedium
sizeenterprises.
(7) Technical Assistance under Article 11
120. TheChairman recalled thatattheCommittee 'sfifthmeeting, theChairperson hadexpressed
theviewthatimplementation oftheTBTAgreement wasproceeding slower thanwould bedesirable
inrelation tothesubmission ofstatements under Article 15.2, andthenumber ofstandardizing bodies
thathadaccepted theCode ofGood Practice. Totheextent thatthiswasduetorealtechnical difficulties
oralackofawareness oftheobligations under theAgreement, theSecretariat hadbeenencouraged
toredouble itstechnical assistance work inthisarea.
121. TherepresentativeofBrazilthoughtthatitwasnecessarytoincreasetechnicalassistanceactivities
tomeettheneeds ofdeveloping countries sothattheAgreement could befullyimplemented. Inthis
context, special attention should begiven tothedevelopment andtraining ofhuman resources.
122. TherepresentativeofEgyptsaidthattheSecretariatshouldbeencouragedtoredoubleitstechnical
assistance work inorder toovercome thetechnical difficulties ofMembers andtocreate theawareness
ofobligations under theAgreement. Heshared theviewexpressed byBrazil thattraining ofhuman
resources wasanimportant areaoftechnical assistance. Developed country Members could contribute
bysharing theirexperience intheapplication oftheAgreement.
123. Therepresentative ofNigeria recalled thatabriefing session byexperts ontheAgreement and
related issues hadbeenorganized bytheChairman andtheSecretariat inApril. Hequestioned ifa
seminar orsymposium ofthatkindcould beelaborated again, preferably backtobackwiththenext
meeting, sothathisdelegation andseveral others could profit from it.G/TBT/M/8
Page24
124. Therepresentative from theSecretariat recalled thatatthebriefing session inApril,
representatives from theISOandtheWorld Bank hadbeeninvited toaddress interested Members.
Hesaidthatatthisstage, there wasnoplanforfuture exercise ofthatnature. However, ifMembers
thought ituseful, theSecretariat andtheChairman could lookintothepossibilities forhaving another
briefing session.
(8) Special andDifferential Treatment under Article 12
125. Therepresentative ofEgypt recognized Article 12asanimportant element ofbalance inthe
Agreement andappreciated anyeffort toenhance andactivate itsprovisions inorder tohelpdeveloping
countries tobetter implement theirobligations under theAgreement.
(9) Definition ofProportionality andLeast Trade Restrictive Measures Possible
126. Therepresentative ofEgypt underlined theimportance ofthedefinition ofproportionality and
least trade restrictiveness measures, notonlytoensure theconsistency intheapplication ofthe
Agreement, butalsotoenhance thestability initsapplication.
127. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthattoherdelegation, ashorthand definition of
proportionality andleasttrade restrictive measures would notadequately oraccurately capture the
obligations under Article 2.2.Shenoted thatunder theAgreement, atechnical regulation should not
bemore trade restrictive thannecessary tofulfil thelegitimate objectives. Itincluded thefollowing:
theexistence ofreasonably available alternatives, taking intoaccount technical andeconomic feasibility,
thealternatives which would besignificantly lesstrade restrictive andatthesame timewould fulfil
thegovernment 'slegitimate objectives. Sherecalled thatsome relevant points hadbeenmade inthe
NewZealand paper andsaidthatherdelegation would come backtotheissue atfuture meetings.
(10) Environmental Standards
Relevant proposals:
(i) Eco-labelling; and
(ii) ISO14000 standards forenvironmental management systems.
128. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisdelegation didnotintend toholdindepth discussions
oneco-labelling inthecontext oftheTriennial Review. Hedrew attention topara. 185oftheReport
oftheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment totheSingapore Ministerial Conference which stressed
theimportance ofMembers 'notifying eco-labelling programmes without prejudicing Members 'position
onthecoverage ofnon-product related PPMs.
129. Referring totheCanadian proposal toinitiate discussions onISO14000, henoted thatanumber
ofdelegations hadindicated theirinterest intheissue, butmore timewould beneeded foritsanalysis.
Hedrewattention totheinformation provided bytherepresentative ofITCwithrespect toanupcoming
report, andtoanexpert meeting oftheUNCTAD tobeheldon3-5November onISO14000. He
encouraged active participation ofdelegations frombothGeneva andcapitals andthought thatitwould
provide animportant occasion foreducation andanalysis. Hesuggested thatitmight beuseful for
UNCTAD toprovide relevant background papers.
130. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatIndia'sposition oneco-labels waswellknown through
itsinterventions intheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment. Hereiterated thatonlystandards onG/TBT/M/8
Page25
products andtheirrelated PPMs werecovered under theTBTAgreement. Henoted thatISO14000
eco-labelling standards hadnotbeenfullydeveloped andthought thatitwould bepremature tolook
atthemintheWTO. Hesaidthatevenifitwaspossible totreatnon-product-related PPMs inatrade
neutral manner, acceptance oftheconcept intheWTO could result insome Members presuming
consistence ofsuchPPMs withWTO disciplines, intheirapplication vis-à-vis theirmarket access
commitments.
131. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities, referring tothescope oftheagreement in
relation toeco-labelling programmes based onproduct life-cycle andinvolving criteria relating to
non-product related PPMs, saidthatherdelegation ’sposition ascontained inadocument presented
totheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment (CTE) remained unchanged. ShesaidthattheCommittee
should continue examining thisquestion, inparticular inthecontext oftheCommittee onTrade and
Environment andsuggested thatitmight beuseful forthetwoCommittees toholdjointmeetings.
Sheshared concerns expressed byanumber ofMembers, including those toensure thetransparency
ofdevelopment andoperation ofeco-labelling schemes. With respect tostandards onenvironmental
management systems, shedidnotthink theywould fallwithin thescope oftheAgreement, since they
wereusedtoimprove theglobal environmental performance ofcompanies andhadnodirect linkwith
products manufactured bythecompanies inquestion.
132. Therepresentative ofNigeria saidthatinrespect ofeco-labelling programmes, hisdelegation
hadawellestablished position intheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment. Heshared theview
expressed byIndiathatnon-product related PPMs wereexcluded fromthescope oftheTBTAgreement.
Hesupported theproposal made bytheEuropean Communities forjointmeetings oftheCommittee
withtheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment toavoid having discussions ontheissue indifferent
forum. Hesaidthathisdelegation hadmade asimilar proposal intheCommittee onTrade and
Environment which wasstillunder consideration bythatCommittee.
133. Therepresentative ofMexico reiterated thatgiven thattheAgreement applied toalltypes of
technical regulations andstandards ingeneral terms, theTriennial Review should notfollow avertical
approach andlookatspecific sectors. Shequestioned whether itwastheappropriate timeforMembers
todiscuss thespecific issueofeco-labelling. Herdelegation ’sviewwasthatalllabelling requirements
were covered bythedisciplines oftheAgreement anditsAnnex 3(Code ofGood Practice onthe
Preparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards) regardless theinformation included onthelabels.
Itwasanother issuethatdealtwiththelegitimacy orthelegality oftheinformation onthelabelitself.
Herdelegation wasgoing tohaveaclose lookatthecoverage oftheAgreement anditapplicability
toeco-labelling withrespect tonon-product-related PPMs. Shethought thatatthisstage, itwould
bepremature fortheCommittee toholdjointmeetings withtheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment
toconsider theissue ofeco-labelling. Inthelightofexperience ofthelasttwoyears, shefeltthat
itmight bebetter fortheCommittee tomove further inthesubstantive debate ontheissue andthen
consider whattodonext.
134. Therepresentative ofSingapore referring totheissue ofeco-labelling, emphasized thatdue
recognition should beaccorded tothenegotiating history oftheTBTAgreement andtotheconcerns
thathadbeenexpressed ontheissue ofnon-product-related PPMs, particularly theirpotential trade
distorting effects andimpact ontheWTO legalsystem.
135. Therepresentative ofIndonesia reiterated theneedtocontinue discussions ontheissue of
environmental standards. Hesaidthatthere should begreater transparency withthose standards and
thattheyshould notbecome adisguised restriction totrade asfaced bydeveloping countries.G/TBT/M/8
Page26
(11) Changing Nature ofStandards
ISO9000 andISO14000 -standards forquality andenvironmental management systems
136. Therepresentative ofCanada drew attention totheCanadian paper containing proposals on
thesubject matter andnoted thatsome ofthepoints under thisitemwould fallintotheareasoftechnical
regulations andregulatory reform. Hisdelegation would come upwithfurther ideas inthecoming
months.
137. Therepresentative ofBrazil suggested thattheCommittee should analysis thetrade impact
ofsystems management standards -suchasISO9000 and14000 -inorder todetermine howtodeal
withtheissues involved.
138. Therepresentative ofNigeria saidthattheCommittee should lookintotheissue withcare.
Itisimportant toknow what itintended todoandhowdiscussions would bemanaged because the
issuelinkedtoPPMsandGATTjurisprudencewhichhaditsresonanceoveratwo-yearperioddiscussions
intheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment.
139. Therepresentative oftheITCinformed theCommittee thatastudy onthetrade impact of
ISO9000and14000standardswasunderpreparationbyUNIDOincorporationwithISOandtheEnglish
Organization Resource. Preliminary results might beavailable inSeptember 1997.
(12) Effect oftheAgreement onSMEs
140. Therepresentative ofSingapore noted thattheraison d'êtreoftheTBTAgreement wasto
facilitate theelimination oftechnical barriers totrade. Whether theAgreement hadfulfilled thisgoal
could onlybeascertained withempirical datashowing theeffect thattheTBTAgreement hadonexport
opportunities andmarket access. Casestudies focusing ontheeffect oftheAgreement onsmall and
medium sized enterprises (SMEs) would beuseful. Hesuggested thattheSecretariat could undertake
suchastudy.
(13) Annex 1Terms andtheir definitions forthepurpose oftheAgreement
141. TherepresentativeofBrazilthoughtthatitwasimportanttopreventdifferencesinunderstandings
andinterpretations between Members, e.g.,theconcept oflegitimate objectives oftechnical regulations
under Article 2.2. Itwas useful toharmonize theconcept andscope under theAgreement and
ISO/Guide 2.
142. TheChairman suggested thatforthepurpose ofmoving forward thediscussion oftheTriennial
Review, aninformal catalogue could bedeveloped bytheSecretariat compiling views, suggestions,
proposals andcomments made. Heinvited input from Members tobesubmitted totheSecretariat by
4Julysothatthefirstversion ofthecatalogue could bemade available before theendoftheSummer
break. Headded thatfurther proposals andcomments would bewelcomed andwould beincluded in
thecatalogue. Inadditional tothetwoformal meetings inOctober andNovember, heproposed to
schedule twoopen-ended informal meetings around themiddle ofSeptember andendofOctober.
143. TheCommittee took note ofthestatements made.G/TBT/M/8
Page27
D. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
144. TheChairman reiterated Members 'obligations tosubmit their statements under Article 15.2
onMeasures taken toImplement andAdminister theAgreement. Henoted thatcurrently, 49Members
hadsubmitted their statements (G/TBT/2/ andAdd.1-33). Herecalled thatinMay, hehadsentreminders
toMembers who hadnotyetsubmitted their statements andurged them todosoassoon aspossible.
145. Therepresentative ofTurkey informed theCommittee thatTurkey hadsubmitted itsstatement
under Article 15.2 anditwould becirculated toMembers shortly.
146. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities raised their concern with newregulations on
tyres imported intoEgypt. Theassessment procedures adopted since November 1996 hadcreated
difficulties onthecompanies concerned. Shesaidthatthepermit licences needed forimported tyres
tobeputonmarket were notdelivered, ordelivered after alengthy period. Shequestioned ifsimilar
procedures existed fortheassessment oflocal production. Herdelegation hadsubmitted comments
andcontacted theEgyptian authorities since March 1997. However, there hadbeen noimprovement
inthesituation. Sherequested Egypt toprovide information onthemeasures taken, inparticular those
relating totheassessment ofdomestic production. Sheasked ifthere wasanyintention tospeed up
theissuing ofpermit licences forimported tyre.
147. Therepresentative ofEgypt noted thatthere hadbeen on-going bilateral consultations between
theEuropean Communities andhisauthorities ontheissue ofEgyptian regulations ontyres andhoped
thatsatisfactory results could bereached soon. Herequested thedelegation oftheEuropean Communities
totransmit itsintervention inwriting sothatitcould beaccurately conveyed back tohiscapital and
thatanswers could beprovided inthenear future.
148. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatfurther totheintervention byNorway atthemeeting
of14February, regarding Canadian technical regulations formarine cables, aresponse totheconcerns
raised hadbeen provided toNorway andtotheSecretariat forinterested delegations. Henoted that
therealissue athand wastheacceptance ofIEC92-353 andthewithdrawal ofIEC92-3, andnotwhether
Canada adhered tointernational IECstandards. Hesaidthatthestatus ofIEC92-3 wascurrently being
addressed byIEC/TC128/SC18A ofwhich Canada wasamember. Given thetechnical nature ofthe
issues involved, hisdelegation hadagreed tohold discussions bilaterally with Norway.
149. TherepresentativeofNorwaywelcomedtheanswerprovidedbyCanadaandCanada’sreassurance
ofitswillingness touseinternational standards asabasis foritsregulatory work. Hesaidthathis
authorities would consult bilaterally with Canada attheexpert level andreserve itsrights topursue
thematter further within theCommittee, should theoutcome prove tobeunsatisfactory.
150. Therepresentative ofCanada drew attention toaFrench banonasbestos andnoted thatin
response totheCanadian request atthelastmeeting, technical justification ontheFrench measure had
been received from theEuropean Commission. Thejustification stated thattheprohibition wasbased
onthepreliminary report oftheInstitut National delaSantéetdelaRecherche Médicale (INSERM
Report). Herecalled thattheFrench banwasannounced shortly after therelease ofthedraft INSERM
Report before ithadbeen finalized. Hethought thatthefindings oftheReport didnotprovide an
adequate scientific basis fortheprohibition ofasbestos and products containing asbestos. A
Dunnigan-Gibbs study commissioned bytheGovernment ofQuebec considered theReport aslacking
thescientific rationale forbanning alltypes ofasbestos andallofitsapplications. Hesaidthatunder
theAgreement,technicalregulationsmustnotbemoretraderestrictivethannecessarytofulfilalegitimate
objective, taking account oftherisks non-fulfilment would create. Inassessing those risks, aMember
must consider available scientific andtechnical information. Inreviewing theINSERM Report, theG/TBT/M/8
Page28
international group ofexperts established bytheRoyal Society ofCanada considered thatitoverestimated
therealthreat tothepopulation ofFrance andmight have underestimated thedifferences between fibre
types. Themortality statistics cited intheReport were primarily related topastpractices andlackof
current dataonexposure, especially concerning lowlevel exposure. Thejustification stated thatthe
INSERM Report came outinfavour ofthe"most plausible hypothesis ofuncertainty". Hesought
clarification ofthatformula andasked ifitreferred totheprecautionary principle.
151. HesaidthatCanada andanumber ofcountries, both producers andconsumers ofasbestos and
asbestos products, shared France 'sconcern forthehealth ofthegeneral population, workers inthe
construction industry andother occupational groups. However, Canada believed thatthebanwasmore
trade restrictive than necessary toachieve theobjective ofprotection ofhuman health andsafety. He
suggested thatthepolicy ofcontrolled-use ofasbestos, based onrecognized scientific principles and
long-standing international consensus, wasanadequate waytofulfil theobjective andthatthere was
noscientific reason toabandon thepolicy oncontrolled-use ofchrysotile asbestos. Hethought that
theFrench measure wasadisproportionate reaction andwould notsolve thelong-standing problem
resulting from thepastuseofproducts containing friable asbestos inolder buildings. Thebanwould
notappropriately address theissue ofhealth andsafety ofworkers onconstruction anddemolition sites
because workers would stillhave towork with in-place non-friable asbestos products. Hisauthorities
would continue topursue thematter inallavailable fora.
152. Therepresentative ofColombia shared concerns ofCanada with respect totheFrench banon
theimport ofasbestos andasbestos products. Herecalled thattheColombian Minister ofForeign Trade
hadmade comments following thenotification oftheFrench measure. Questions hadbeen raised on
why thebanwasbased only ontheINSERM Report while other institutions andinternational studies
hadestablished thattheuseofasbestos could besafeifproperly handled. Hethought thatanimport
banwasnotjustified forthepurpose ofprotecting workers andconsumers. Inorder tominimize any
riskincurred inhandling asbestos, proper industrial safety measures should betaken.
153. Therepresentative ofSouth Africa recalled thatatthemeeting of14February, hisdelegation
hadassociated itself withconcerns expressed byCanada withrespect totheFrench banontheimportation
ofasbestosproducts.HewelcomedthejustificationreceivedfromtheEuropeanCommunities.However,
hisdelegation continued tohave questions andreservations regarding thejustification. Hesupported
theviews expressed byCanada andColombia andrequested theFrench authorities toconsider imposing
lesstrade-restrictive measures.
154. Therepresentative ofMexico shared theconcerns raised byCanada, Colombia andSouth Africa
regarding theFrench banonasbestos andendorsed theposition thatsuch measures should bewithdrawn.
155. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthejustification provided byher
delegation concerning theFrench banonasbestos haddemonstrated thatthelegislation inquestion
conformed with theprovisions oftheAgreement. Shesaidthatasimilar reply hadalsobeen recently
senttothedelegation ofColombia. Thejustification provided bytheFrench authorities wasbased
onthecarcinogenic characteristic ofthefibres, inparticular thefibre chrysotile. There wasnoexposure
threshold beyond which there would benoriskofasbestos linked disease. Thelegislation wasbased
onthefactthatcontrolled useofasbestos wasnotpossible, particularly inprofessions other thanasbestos
using professions where people concerned were dangerously exposed toasbestos intermittently. The
banwasbased ontheprecautionary principle thatwasconsidered possible toeliminate theexposure
riskwithrespect toasbestos. Sherequested delegations whohadtaken thefloor onthesubject toprovide
information regarding thequantity ofasbestos produced andused intheir country andthequantity which
wasexported.G/TBT/M/8
Page29
156. Therepresentative ofCanada drew attention toafailure bytheEuropean Communities tonotify
technical regulations relating togenetically-modified organisms (GMOs). Henoted thatboth theNovel
Foods regulation (EC258/97) andtheAmendment totheDirective ontheDeliberate Release ofGMOs
(EC90/220) hadbeen implemented without notification under Article 2.9.2 oftheAgreement. The
Novel Foods Regulation specified therules fortheapproval andlabelling ofgenetically altered food
imports attheEuropean Union level. Labelling offood oringredients asgenetically altered would
thus bemandatory ifitwasconsidered tobesignificantly different from conventional food orfood
ingredients. TheAmendment totheDirective specified thatproducts containing GMOs would have
tobeidentified assuch ontheir packaging. While hisdelegation hadbeen having bilateral discussions
with theEuropean Commission onthemandatory technical regulations, henoted thatthose technical
regulations were covered bytheAgreement andsubject toitsdisciplines. Heasked theEuropean
Communities when those regulations would benotified.
157. Therepresentative oftheUnited States associated herdelegation with thecomments made by
Canada.
158. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities replying totheCanadian question, noted that
therelevant notifications had been made inTBT/Notif.92.355 (12November 1992) and in
G/TBT/Notif.97.151 (21April 1997) onRegulation EC258/97 adopted inJanuary 1997 concerning
thelabelling offood products produced from genetically modified soya andmaize.
159. Shedrew attention toaThai billwhich hadbeen adopted inApril 1997 onthedisclosure of
ingredients incigarettes andcigars. Thebillrelated totheTobacco Control Actadopted in1995 which
wasinbreach oftheTBT Agreement. Shequestioned iftheThai regulation hadalready been published
andwould itbenotified under theAgreement. Shesaidthatsince thecontent oftheregulation was
notknown, herdelegation could notyetjudge whether itwasrelevant toother international agreements.
160. Sherecalledthatatthelastmeeting,herdelegationhadraisedconcernsabouttheIsraeliregulation
ontableware. Sheregretted thatnosatisfactory result hadbeen achieved since then.
161. Therepresentative ofThailand took noteofthestatement made bytheEuropean Communities
ontheThai cigarette billandsaidshewould refer itback totheauthorities concerned foranswers.
162. TheCommittee took note ofthestatements made.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
163. Therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theCommittee ofthework under wayinthe
UN/Economic Commission forEurope, Working Party onTechnical Harmonization andStandardization
Policies. Shenoted thatatitsMay 1997 Meeting, theWorking Group hadadopted, onanadhocbasis,
aproposedinter-governmentalagreementontechnicalharmonization.Itwouldbeconsideredforapproval
bytheCommittee forTrade, Industry andEnterprise Development atitsDecember 1997 meeting. The
purpose oftheAgreement wastoextend thecommitments undertaken byWTO Members under the
TBT Agreement toECE Member countries ofwhich approximately 50were notyetWTO Members.
SheunderstoodthatitwasnotintendedtohaveanyeffectontherightsandobligationsofWTOMembers.
Herdelegation wascurrently reviewing thedocument.
164. TheCommittee took note oftheStatement made.G/TBT/M/8
Page30
165. TheCommittee agreed tohold thenext meetings oftheTBT Technical Working Group and
oftheCommittee back toback on2-3October. ThelastCommittee meeting of1997 would beheld
on12-13 November atwhich theCommittee would carry outitsFirst Triennial Review. Inaddition,
twoopen-ended informal meeting would beheldaround themiddle ofSeptember andtheendofOctober
fordiscussions oftheTriennial Review.