WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/W/88
15 September 1998
(98-3467)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:  English
EQUIVALENCY OF STANDARDS:  AN INTERIM MEASURE TO
FACILITATE TRADE IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
Note from New Zealand
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The WTO TBT Agreement includes a requirement that positive consideration be given to
acceptance of equivalency of technical regulations.  Article 2.7 states that:
"Members shall give positive consideration to accepting as equivalent technical regulations of
other Members, even if these regulations differ from their own, provided they are satisfied
that these regulations adequately fulfil the objectives of their own regulations".
However, currently, the WTO TBT Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and
Application of Standards does not impose any similar requirements on bodies developing voluntary
standards.1
2. In the course of the First Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the
Agreement conducted in 1997, some Members submitted that the WTO TBT Code of Good Practice
for Standards should also contain a similar provision to that of Article 2.7 of the TBT Agreement.  It
was noted that while the TBT Agreement differentiates quite rightly between technical regulations
(mandatory in their nature) and standards (voluntary in their nature), that in practice standards could
create unnecessary obstacles to trade.  The Committee has recently received submissions of national
experience papers highlighting some of the difficulties that arise in this regard.2
3. During the Triennial Review Discussions, the TBT Committee recognized that divergent
national standards serving similar objectives existed in different Member economies.  In particular,
this occurred where international standards did not exist in a particular area.  The Committee agreed,
inter alia , that Members should exchange views on:
- the reasons why no international standards exist in these circumstances;- experiences in the implementation of Article 2.7 of the TBT Agreement relating to
equivalency of technical regulations;  and
- whether and how the concept of equivalency might apply in relation to voluntary
standards.
                                                     
1At the beginning of this year, 97 bodies responsible for voluntary standards had notified the WTO of
their acceptance of this Code.
2G/TBT/W/60 submitted by Colombia and G/TBT/W/61 submitted by Canada refer.G/TBT/W/88
Page 2
4. This paper is contributed as part of the follow  up process to the Triennial Review.  It seeks to
prompt an exchange of views on these matters, and makes suggestions for ways in which individual
and cooperative actions could facilitate removal of technical barriers to trade through the recognition
of equivalency of national voluntary standards.
II. WHY DO INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS NOT EXIST?
5. While the TBT Agreement requires international standards to be followed at the national
level, international standards do not always exist to provide national standardizing bodies with
appropriate guidance.  Where there are no international standards, but instead divergent national
standards serving similar objectives, this can be explained by a variety of factors, including the
following:
- limits to the resources of the central secretariats of the international standards bodies;
- limits to the resources of the national standards bodies and national committees
contributing to international standards processes;
- insufficient weighting given to the significance of trade when prioritising new
international standards development projects;
- the time-lag between the identification of need for a new international standard and
the agreed outcome;
- the difficulty in achieving agreement on common solutions where differing national
standards are well-established;  and there are significant cost implications in aligning
with a common solution (in our view this is probably the most significant reason).
6. One important step in overcoming these difficulties would be to seek to ensure, to the extent
possible, that in developing standards within in ternational standardizing bodies, the primary focus
should be placed on seeking common agreement on the performance objectives (rather than detailed
descriptive or design matters).  Indeed Paragraph I of the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation,
Adoption and Application of Standards advocates performance rather than design or descriptive
approaches to be used by national standardizing bodies in standards formulation.  The requirements of
this code are near identical to the principles of standardization espoused by the internationalstandardizing bodies.  With performance as the main focus for the agreement on international
standards, faster development would likely be facilitated.
7. By extension, Paragraph I of the Code of Good Practice, by requiring that, whenever possible,
national standards should focus on performance rather than specify design or descriptive
characteristics, supports the concept of equivalency by recognizing that the same performance
outcome might be achieved in different ways.
III. NEW ZEALAND EXPERIENCES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 2.7
OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
8. New Zealand seeks to keep regulation to a minimum, and to follow the principles of good
regulatory design and practice outlined in the pa per submitted to the 1997 Triennial Review on the
preparation, adoption and review of technical regulations.
3  In addition, increasingly in recent years
there has been growing cooperation with Australia, our closest trading partner, to remove regulatory
barriers to trade and economic integration.  This approach has been facilitated by our shared
                                                     
3G/TBT/W/44 submitted by New ZealandG/TBT/W/88
Page 3
commitment to ensuring good regulatory design a nd by the similar conditions that exist in both
economies.  Below are three different ways in which New Zealand has sought to pursue
implementation of its obligations under Article 2.7:
TTMRA:  The most striking example of the Australia/New Zealand cooperative approach is the Trans
Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA), concluded in 1996.  The key principle of this
arrangement is that a good which can be legally sold in one country may be legally sold in the other,
without having to meet further sales-related regulatory  requirements.  In effect, differing Australian
requirements relating to sale are recognized as equivalent to meet New Zealand objectives, and
vice-versa.  This arrangement has real benefits for countries that trade both with Australia and
New Zealand, as the net effect in the various areas covered by the agreement is in many cases to
replace two separate sets of national regulatory requirements for sale with one.
This flexible approach helps avoid the potential fo r over regulation arising from harmonization efforts
where divergent objectives and approaches can lead to more trade restrictive outcomes than
necessary.  TTMRA was developed in recognition of the fact that trade and commercial transactions
could be better facilitated by an equivalency approach.  However, at the same time the arrangement
takes account of the fact that equivalency may not always be a possible solution where the
circumstances applicable in one country in relation to a product are not materially similar to those inanother.
Mutual Recognition Agreements:  Another cooperative approach New Zealand has used is the
negotiation of bilateral mutual recognition agreements with trading partners further afield, for
example the New Zealand/European Union MRA on conformity assessment.  Article 6.3 of the
TBT Agreement encourages these types of arrangements.  However the costs in terms of thenegotiation and implementation of such arrangements need to be taken into account.  In addition, it
should be remembered that Article 2.7 of the TBT Agreement reinforces the notion of unilateral
recognition of equivalency, rather than the need for reciprocal bilateral agreements.
Referencing other countries national standards in New Zealand regulations:  In New Zealand,
equivalency has also been provided in some cases by referencing a national standard as well as
several national standards from other countries as means of compliance for regulations.  As an
example in New Zealand, several standards for infant seats in motor vehicles have been deemed to all
provide an acceptable level of safety.  In effect this represents a recognition of equivalency because,
in order to aid compliance, these overseas regulations themselves refer back to the relevant national
standards.
IV. APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENCY TO VOLUNTARY
STANDARDS
9. In many cases, relevant international standards will be available to provide a basis for national
standards.  However, for the reasons indicated in paragraph 5, this will not always be so.  Even where
the need for an international standard is acknowledged, experience shows that they can take at least
five years to develop.  In the meantime, what options are available to facilitate trade between
countries whose different national standards appear to be underpinned by very similar objectives?
10. In New Zealand's view, in many instances an arrangement for recognition of equivalency of
national standards should be relatively straight fo rward.  It would also provide a useful interim
solution for the facilitation of trade until an international standard is available.  Furthermore, if
agreement on an international standard proves difficult to achieve, an equivalency arrangement will
tend to focus the developers of national standards on resolving the differences.  This would beparticularly effective if, as suggested above, th e international standards initially brought together
collective agreement on just the performance objectives.G/TBT/W/88
Page 4
11. New Zealand does not consider that the development and application of an equivalency
concept to national standards runs in any way counter to efforts to strengthen the role of international
standards.  Equivalency arrangements are in fact likely to be useful building blocks to the
achievement and adoption of new international standards.  The development of a concept of
equivalency for application to voluntary standa rds would represent an acknowledgement of the
significant role that standards play in determinin g the nature of trade, and the practical compliance
difficulties that they can create when an unduly prescriptive approach to standards development is
taken.
12. If national standards organizations were to address equivalency with foreign standards at the
same time of developing their own national standa rds, there would subsequently be no need for
governments to additionally cite foreign standards in regulations in implementing Article 2.7 of the
TBT Agreement.  In effect, the foreign standards would already have been taken into account in thespecific equivalency arrangements recognized in the single national standard referred to in national
compliance requirements.  The consensus and public consultation processes employed by national
standards bodies would ensure industry and community acceptance of these regulatory solutions.
V. MEANS OF APPLYING THE ARTICLE  2.7 CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENCY TO
VOLUNTARY STANDARDS
13. There appear to be two main avenues that would be available to encourage and facilitate the
application of the Article 2.7 concept of standards equivalency.  The first centres on the individual
action of National Standardizing Bodies.  The second relates to scope for cooperative actions between
international and national standardizing bodies and networks.  For discussion purposes, we suggest
some ways in which both individual and cooperation action could be taken.
A. E
QUIVALENCY - INDIVIDUAL ACTION BY A NATIONAL STANDARDS BODY
14. The implementation of the equivalency requirements for regulations in Article 2.7 of the
WTO TBT Agreement relies on responsible individual action by the signatory economies.  The most
explicit and consistent way to incorporate the concept of standards equivalence in the TBT Agreement
would be to add a similar commitment to Article 2.7 as part of the Code of Good Practice for the
Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards.  A provision of this sort would provide a strong
incentive in cases where no relevant international standards exits for national standardizing bodies to
cooperate more closely with their counterparts within other WTO member-States to exchange
information on their respective standards objectives.  It would lessen the tendency for national
standards to be construed "in a vacuum", without regard to the potential implications that they might
have on trade.
15. In effect, an additional provision on equivale ncy to the Code of Good Practice should not be
seen as a revolutionary development, but rather as a natural one.  Some national standardizing bodies
are already actively engaged in addressing equivalency issues.  This is very much the case between
Australia and New Zealand, the two national standardizing bodies of which have developed an
"umbrella standard" concept.  The most notable example is the Australian/New Zealand Standard
AS/NZS 1200:1994 - Pressure equipment.  There are currently no international standards for primary
application to the design, manufacture and inspection of boilers and pressure vessels.  However,
US (ANSI/ASME) and European (BS/EN) standards have world-wide recognition, and Australian
Standards have particular relevance to New Zealand.
16. A copy of a page from AS/NZS 1200 is attached as Annex A.  This is a voluntary standard
that lists a number of applicable standards that provide equivalent and acceptable performance for theNew Zealand environment.  AS/NZS 1200 provides a means of compliance with New Zealand
regulations that is also compatible with the intent of the WTO TBT Agreement.  It provides theG/TBT/W/88
Page 5
New Zealand regulatory body responsible for safety of boilers and pressure vessels with a means of
achieving the requirements of TBT Article 2.7.  It also provides a means of using recognized
consensus processes to determine equivalence, ra ther than the less rigorous processes normally
employed by a regulatory body.
17. AS/NZS 1200 has been very well received in New Zealand, and has proved effective in
minimizing technical barriers to trade.  We have used the same approach in developing the
New Zealand Standard for gas appliance safety (NZS 5262)
B. EQUIVALENCY – COOPERATIVE ACTIONS
18. The TBT Committee may also wish to discuss whether it would be desirable to coordinate
equivalency arrangements on a regional or internationa l basis.  It would be much easier to do this in
areas of voluntary standards than for technical regulations, primarily because of the existence of
international and regional coordinating bodies and ne tworks (ISO, IEC, PASC etc).  A sensible first
step would be the encouragement of information exchange between the various bodies to explore
strategies for the implementation of equivalency concepts in relation to the national standards of
others.
19. International and regional standardization bodies and networks could feasibly coordinate the
recognition of equivalency actions by national standards bodies by seeking collective agreement onpriority areas for voluntary action by individual standards bodies.  They could also facilitate collective
agreement on which national standards provide for acceptable levels of performance in each of these
priority areas.
20. For example, smoke alarms might be identified and agreed upon as a focus area.  The
acceptability of, and performance comparisons for, national standards for smoke alarms such asANSI/UL, AS, BS and ULC could be considered, and a list of commonly acceptable equivalents
agreed upon by members of the international/regional coordinating group.  The group might decide to
recommend that member standardization bodies recognize and notify the equivalence of the agreed
list of standards.
21. Any collective agreements for cooperative actions of this nature would appear to be best
focused on a few areas of particular significance to regional or international trade.  These actions
should only be undertaken in areas where international standards do not exist and are not likely to be
available within the short term (say, five years).
22. It should be noted that the Pacific Area Standards Congress (PASC) is currently investigating
areas in which Asis-Pacific standards bodies could voluntarily cooperate to implement recognition of
equivalence.
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
23. In conclusion, the concept of standards equivalency has merit as a means of avoiding and
further reducing unnecessary obstacles to trade.  It is emphasized that it should only be applied where
international standards do not exist, and then only as an interim measure until suitable international
standards are made available.  Arrangements for recognition of equivalency can provide a useful
starting-point for agreement on content of future international standards.
24. In view of the benefits that recognition and application of a concept of equivalency could
have in context of voluntary standard, the Committee could further consider the following draft
recommendations:G/TBT/W/88
Page 6
(a) Endorsing the inclusion in the Code of Good Practice of the following additional
paragraph:
"The standardizing body shall give positive consideration to accepting as equivalent,
standards originating from other Members of the WTO, even if these standards differ from
their own, provided they are satisfied that these standards adequately fulfil the objectives oftheir own standards".
(b) Requesting international and regional standardizing bodies to encourage an exchange
of information from the standardizing bodies that make up their membership on the
actions they have taken to implement equivalency in relation to national standards of
other members.
(c) Encouraging international and regional standardizing bodies to coordinate and
prioritise actions for recognition of equivalency by their membership.G/TBT/W/88
Page 7
ANNEX A
SECTION 3 SPECIFIC NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS
3.1 GENERAL Design, materials, manufacture, testing, supply, installation, inspection,
commissioning, operation, maintenance, repair, alteration and disposal of pressure equipment shall
comply with the applicable Standards referenced in the listing below.
For compliance with the New Zealand Hazardous Equipment Regulations made under the
provisions of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, pressure equipment covered by this
Standard (see Appendix A) shall comply with the Primary Applicable Standards in the listing below.
Where a Primary Applicable Standard is used, all its referenced normative Standards shall be
applied in their entirety (except as permitted by this document).
Alternative ISO, CEN, USA, British and Australian pressure equipment Standards, giving
equivalent safety requirements to those listed below, may be used as substitutes, provided they areapplied in their entirety and are acceptable to all parties concerned.
If no applicable Standard is listed below, the Standard applied shall be agreed upon between
the parties concerned.
Primary Applicable Standards
BS 806 ANSI/ASMB B31-3
BS 853 AS 1210
BS 855 AS 1210 Supp No.1BS 1113 AS 1228
BS 2790 AS 1797
BS 3970 Parts 1 to 5 AS 2593
‡
BS 5169 AS 3901/NZS 9001/ISO 9001BS 5500 AS 3902/NZS 9002/ISO 9002
BS/EN 286 Part 1 AS 3509
NZS 5351 SAA HB18, 39NZS 5418 IMDG Code
ANSI/ASME Section I (Water Tube Boilers only)
*Other prime requirements
ANSI/ASME Section VIII Div, 1* and 2†New Zealand Boiler Code, Part II
ANSI/ASME B31.1
                                                     
*Quality assurance certification, marking and materials shall satisfy the requirements of the
New Zealand regulatory authority.
†For Division 2 applications, total compliance with Division 2 is required including Code Stampings.
‡As permitted within the scope of the New Zealand draft code of practice for the design and safe
operation, maintenance and servicing of boilers.G/TBT/W/88
Page 8
3.2 Design Verification
3.2.1 Application.  All pressure equipment (except that excluded in Paragraph A4) shall be
subjected to independent design verification and a design verification certificate shall be provided to
the owner.  Design verifiers and design verifying bodies shall be registered with the New Zealandregulatory authority in accordance with the requirements of the New Zealand Hazardous Equipment
Regulations.
__________