RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/M/24
14 August 2001
(01-3998)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 JUNE 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Joshua Phoho Setipa (Lesotho)
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade held its twenty-fifth meeting on 29 June 2001.
2. The following agenda, contained in WTO/AIR/1567, was adopted:
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE
OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THEBUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM) AND THE
GULF ORGANIZATION FOR INDUS TRIAL CONSULTI NG (GOIC)...........................2
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEM ENT ...................................................................................................................... ....2
III. FOLLOW-UP OF THE MEETING ON PROCEDURES FOR INFORMATION
EXCHANG E ....................................................................................................................... ......9
IV. UPDATING BY OBSERVER (WHO/F AO CODEX ALIM ENTARIUS) ........................12
V. FOLLOW-UP OF THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE
OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AG REEMENT .....................12
VI. TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE ................................................................................................18
VII. OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................. ...20G/TBT/M/24
Page 2
I. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV), THE BUREAU
INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES (BIPM) AND THE GULF
ORGANIZATION FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSULTING (GOIC)
3. The Chairman, after holding informal consultations with a number of delegations, concluded
that there was still no agreement among Members on these requests largely due to the unresolved
discussions in the General Council on observer status in WTO bodies.
4. The Committee took note of the statements made, and agreed to return to these requests at its
next meeting.
II. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
5. The representative of Canada raised concerns about European Community (EC) draft
Directives relating to waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and restriction on the
use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (ROHS).  He noted that the
European Union Environment Council had reached an agreement on the proposals on the WEEE and
ROHS Directives on 7 June 2001.  He shared the co mmitment of the EC to protect health and the
environment and endorsed the rationale for the proposals to increase recycling, reduce waste, and
minimize potential adverse environmental impact associated with such waste.  However, he raised
concerns on the rationale behind the substance bans, the lack of transparency in the procedures, as
well as the adoption of substance bans that might not be justified by science.  He believed that waste
management strategies must be based on comprehensive and scientifically sound assessment on therisk posed to humans and the environment.  A ban on the proposed substances in electrical and
electronic equipments might result in negative envi ronmental impacts by forcing the use of substitutes
that could be more damaging to the environment than the substances they replaced.  He urged a delay
of the ROHS proposal until an appropriate risk assessment could demonstrate the need for particular
measures, and that the EC should take into account Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome.  He soughtclarification on whether the Environment Council had adopted the principle of the proposals or the
texts of them, and requested for the recent texts of the proposals.  He raised concern about the lack of
transparency in the process of elaboration of European Directives that significantly affected industry
of third countries.  He recalled that Canada had provided comments in the summer of 2000 after EC
notifying the draft, and believed that third countries affected by the Directives should be consulted
earlier in the process in order to provide comments.
6. The representative of Egypt reiterated his delegation's position, and believed that the
Directives could create unnecessary obstacles to trade, in particular limit exports from developing
countries which did not have the capability to comply with such Directives.
7. The representative of the United States recalled the long discussion on these proposals in the
Committee and reiterated her concerns about the rationale of the Directives and having a meaningful
opportunity to comment on them.  Her delegation had provided detailed questions to the EC and hadnot received any reply in writing.  She requested the EC to clarify the status of these proposals.
8. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN countries reiterated her
delegation's concerns on the EC proposals expressed at previous meetings and associated herself with
the comments made by Canada and Egypt.  She shared the concerns made about the rationale of the
Directives and the scientific basis for these actions, particularly their impact on SMEs.  She invitedthe EC to clarify.G/TBT/M/24
Page 3
9. The representative of Japan also reiterated his delegation's concerns expressed in previous
meetings and shared concerns expressed by the previous speakers.
10. The representative of Australia supported the previous speakers and reiterated Australian
concerns expressed regarding the trade impact of the EC's proposed measures.
11. The representative of the European Communities took note of the concerns expressed.  He
recalled an expert discussion at a previous meeting, and it had been explained that the notification had
been made at an early stage of the preparation of the Directive.  It was for this reason that a final text
of the draft could not be provided.  He explained that since the draft was currently under discussion in
the European Parliament and Council, it was not poss ible to reply in detail to the questions raised.
Concerning the adoption of the texts, he explai ned that the adoption procedure, called co-decision,
consisted of two readings at the Parliament, fo llowed by a conciliation procedure between the
Parliament and the Council if there were no agreement on all amendments.  The second reading wouldtake place after the summer break, and he believed that there would not be an agreement on all the
amendments.  A conciliation procedure would take place most probably in early 2002.  He suggested
that Members should contact the EC Enquiry point at a later stage when the text would be available.
12. The representative of Canada raised concerns on a draft Bill currently before the
Dutch Parliament with respect to mandatory labelling of wood products.  He believed that the
proposed measures aimed to impose unilateral discriminatory measures created unnecessary obstacles
to trade.  Should these measures be implemented, it would be inconsistent with WTO rules,
particularly with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  He noted the diverse forest types in
Canada covering 417.6 million hectares (100 times the size of the Netherlands).  244.6 million
hectares were commercially productive forests, of which only 118.9 million hectares were currentlymanaged for timber production.  This meant that 70 per cent of Canada's forests were not in
commercial use.  Forests were a vital natural resource, and Canada was a strong advocate of
promoting better forest management practices and combating deforestation in the tropics.  However,
he believed that the proposed legislation would not meet its declared objectives of sustainable forest
management nor combat deforestation in the tropics.  He believed that the Bill would create anunreasonable and a disproportional burden on industry .  It contained a de facto requirement for
traceability throughout the supply chain which was not a standard practice.  Mandatory labelling was
not a step which the majority of suppliers would be ready to implement in the time-frame proposed.
There were also problems on terminology, since the Bill adopted unclear Dutch domestic definitions.
For example, "oerbossen" was translated as primary or old grown forests .  However, there was no
internationally accepted definition on this term.  Canada had been committed to developing
international standards and multilaterally agreed approaches.  The bill imposed Dutch nationalrequirements using Dutch national definitions which would add an additional layer of bureaucracy for
companies exporting to the Netherlands.  If other countries followed this approach, the administrative
burden for a company supplying multiple destinations would be severe.
13. He noted that only 4 per cent of wood consumed in the Netherlands was certified by the
Forest Stewardship Council.  If the Bill were to pa ss without significant changes, the majority of the
wood imported into the Netherlands would have to be tagged "red" – indicated not sustainable forest
managed.  This overwhelming negative publicity for forest products could discourage the use of wood
and encourage substitution by other materials.  The Bill would not necessarily combat deforestation in
developing countries and could not produce the economic incentive for good forest management.  It
imposed a certification requirement without the recognition of capacity building that might be neededto develop a certification regime appropriate to local circumstances and to achieve certification.  It
discriminated against developing countries unable to achieve certification, and as a result would
reduce their market access and harm their economies.  It would not enhance consumer choice, since
consumers would not be able to distinguish between good or bad wood based on the marking.  The
label would only indicate whether a formal certific ation had been adopted, ignoring the fact that wood
products could be sustainably produced without being certified.  He noted that there were a number ofG/TBT/M/24
Page 4
ways tailored to particular national or regional circumstances to promote sustainable forest
management; certification was just one of those.  Many governments, including Canada, had set out
regulations to ensure sound forest practices.  Multilateral agreements as well as capacity building in
developing countries would be the other channels.  While he supported voluntary certification, he was
conscious that its efficiency had not yet been proven, and recognized that it was not the sole way topromote sustainable forest management.  Mandatory certification was a simplistic approach to the
issue, but for the reasons given above, he believed it was counter-productive.
14. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of ASEAN countries, agreed with the
concerns raised by Canada that the Dutch initiative was not consistent with WTO objectives,
particularly with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  This proposed legislation had serious trade
implications, particularly on developing countries' exports of wood.  She reiterated ASEAN's
concerns on this Bill as expressed at previous meetings, and agreed that multilateral solutions tolabelling issues would be more preferable than unilateral trade restrictive measures.  She urged the
Dutch authorities to further reconsider this Bill and to withdraw it.
15. The representative of the European Commun ities informed the Committee that the draft
Dutch Bill was still pending and awaiting debate in the Netherlands Senate.  The Senate had requested
the Government to formulate its views before it took up the proposal.  Usually, at the end of thelegislative process after the voting procedure in the Senate, the Government would decide whether to
countersign the Bill or not.  He stressed that the Bill had been proposed by a single Member
Parliament to be debated by the Dutch Government, and it was expected to be debated after the
summer.  He would transmit the comments made for the consideration of the Dutch authorities.
16. The representative of Canada recalled that at the last meeting, his delegation had expressed
concerns about the potential trade-restrictive nature of a proposed social labelling initiative in
Belgium to promote socially responsible product ion (notified on 16 Januar y 2001 - G/TBT/N/BEL/2).
He noted that the draft Bill though voluntary, regulated with penalties.  Canada had requested
information through enquiry points and was still awai ting a reply.  His delegation would examine the
draft carefully, and sought a response from the Belgian authorities.
17. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of ASEAN countries, drew attention to a
submission (G/TBT/W/169) containing ASEAN's con cerns regarding the proposed Belgian law.  A
similar note had been sent to the Belgian Enquiry Point in May 2001.  She believed the proposed
legislation constituted an arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination against trade, particularly trade
with developing countries.  It attempted to impose unilateral social standards and targeted mainly
developing countries.  This discriminatory legislation could erode developing countries' share in
world trade and endanger their development prospects.  She urged the Belgian government again towithdraw this proposal.
18. The representative of Egypt shared the Canadian and ASEAN's views.  He reiterated Egypt's
concerns on the implications of the proposed Belgian labelling scheme based on non-trade-related
social issues.  The proposed law touched upon an issue that developing countries had been resisting;
that was the use of a labelling scheme as a disguised measure for protection.  It was discriminatoryand would create unnecessary obstacles to trade.  The draft covered all products and services and was
based on non-product related production and processes methods (PPMs), rendering it inconsistent
with WTO principles.  He had doubt about the objective of the law to provide an incentive for
developing countries to develop socially responsible enterprises.  He questioned if it would serve the
development needs of developing countries.  It applied unilateral measures, ignoring the MinisterialDecision in Singapore which rejected the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes.  He
reiterated that the ILO, and not the WTO, should be the right forum to deal with labour standards.  He
welcomed the clarification that the draft was intended to be a voluntary scheme.  However, his
concerns remained and he urged Belgium to reconsider the draft.G/TBT/M/24
Page 5
19. The representative of Mexico supported the comments made by Canada, ASEAN and Egypt.
20. The representative of Hong Kong, China associated himself with the previous speakers and
reiterated his delegation's concerns raised at the previous meeting.
21. The representative of the United States sought clarification on the voluntary/mandatory nature
of the Belgium draft law and whether it was applicable to domestic production.
22. The representative of Cuba supported the previous statements and in particular the one made
by ASEAN.
23. The representative of the European Communities took note of the comments made.  He
explained that the draft law had come from a member of the Belgian Parliament to meet the demand
of certain non-governmental organizati ons and consumers.  In reflection of the fact that certain private
social labels had already existed and that they could confuse consumers, the Belgian Parliament
considered the preparation of a law stating the conditions for the use of social labels.  The use of suchlabels would be entirely voluntary and would apply without discrimination to Belgian and foreign
manufacturers.  The Belgian authorities took into account the WTO obligations of non-discrimination
and transparency.  This was why a notification had been issued in January 2001 and the comment
period had been extended until 1 June 2001.
24. He noted that the transparency procedure that had been chosen might raise concerns.  The
provision being voluntary could be considered as a standard and therefore should have been notified
to the ISO/IEC Information Center.  However, the Belgian Parliament was not a central government
body nor a central standardization body and could not sign on the Code of Good Practice for the
Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards (Annex 3 of the Agreement), and as a result
could not follow the procedure which is foreseen for standards.  The option which had been chosen byBelgium was to ensure the best transparency in sending a notification under the procedure of
Article 2.9 of the Agreement.  He clarified that the labelling scheme was introduced by a piece of
legislation provided for sanctions in case of misuse of the scheme.  However, the use of the scheme
was voluntary.  Article 4 of the Agreement provided that "Members shall ensure that their central
government standardizing body accept and comply with the Code of Good Practice".  However, thiscould not be applied to the Belgian Parliament, and as a result the two notification procedures
described under the Agreement did not match exactly the regulatory situation in Belgium.  That was
why this voluntary labelling scheme introduced by a piece of legislation had been notified under
Article 2.9.  If the Committee did not consider the procedure proper, Belgium would be willing to
follow any other procedure recommended.  He noted that there had been cases of withdrawal of
notifications by Members, although no such provision was provided in the Agreement.
25. Belgium had received written and oral comments regarding the notification, and these were
currently being considered by the Parliament.  As it was a Parliamentary initiative, it was not under
the control of the Belgian Government nor the Commission.  For this reason, it was difficult to report
to the Committee on the progress of the text in the coming months.  He would reply to the questions
made when more information could be obtained.  He ensured Members that the Belgian Parliament
was committed to take into account all comments made, and reminded that more information wouldbe available at the Belgian enquiry point in due time.
26. The Chairman took note of the question of the EC on the interpretation of the transparency
provisions concerning mandatory technical regulations and voluntary standards under Article 2.9 and
Annex 3 of the Agreement.  He proposed the Committee to come back to it at its next meeting.
27. The representative of Canada raised the following issues related to genetically modified
organisms (GMOs):  (i) the on-going work in th e Codex Alimentarius Commission and (ii) the EC
proposed Directives on labelling and traceability on GMOs.  Canada did not support mandatoryG/TBT/M/24
Page 6
labelling based on non-product-related PPMs, such as biotechnology.  Such a labelling scheme could
be considered a technical barrier to trade as it treated similar products differently based on methods of
production.  Acceptance and endorsement of such mandatory labelling schemes could set a precedent
with implications extending to many other sector s, such as agro-food, forestry, mining, fishery and
manufacturing, including those related to labour standards.  He believed that a voluntary schemesimilar to that being developed by the Canadian General Standards Board (G/TBT/W/134) was a
practical means of providing information to consumers while upholding WTO obligations.
28. With respect to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL), he believed the draft
guideline on labelling of foods derived from  biotechnology could be problematic from a
TBT perspective, if non-health and safety aspects were applied in a mandatory fashion by
governments rather than voluntary by commercial partners.  He noted that during the 29th session of
the CCFL held in Ottawa in May 2001, the issue was deferred until next year's meeting when a fullday would be dedicated to its discussion.  In the interim, he encouraged other Members to consider
the TBT-related implications of such a guideline, and whether to support such a Codex standard that
could be used as a basis for mandatory labelling schemes.  Canada supported the development of a
GMO labelling standard that could be applied by the private sector on an internationally consistent
voluntary basis.
29. He noted that the EC was considering new legislative proposals with respect to the
traceability and labelling of novel food, feed and seed  relating to biotechnology.  He raised concern
that the draft could impede trade in a number of areas, such as corn, wheat and canola.  He believed
that the proposals were not commensurate with the risks which could arise and inconsistent with the
EU policies concerning similar risks in other situations.  He invited other Members to consider thebroader trade implications of the EC's proposals.
30. The representative of the European Communities clarified that the draft legislation was still
under preparation by his authorities, and the one Canada had studied might not be the final draft.
31. The representative of Egypt believed that having guidelines on labelling of foods derived
from biotechnology would be helpful.  However,  mandatory labelling requirements might be
troublesome.  The guidelines should not be binding, and countries should not be required to abide by
them unless they proved to be consistent with countr ies' needs and abilities.  He reserved his right to
come back to this issue at the next meeting in light of results of the Codex 24th Session held in July.
32. The representative of Codex clarified that the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission would consider issues such as amendmen ts to the general standard for labelling of pre-
packaged foods, including the modifications to Section 4.2.2 of the standard concerning allergens
introduced by GMOs through food products.  It would also consider draft definitions concerning food
and food ingredients obtained through certain tech niques of genetic modification and engineering,
definitions on genetically modified or engineered organisms as well as on modern biotechnology.
The controversial issue relating to labelling of GMOs was still subjected to the debate at the Codex
CCFL.  He pointed out that one of the controversial issues related to GMOs was the subject of
traceability.  This subject first came up at the Codex Committee on food inspection and certificationsystems.  It would be discussed in a general sense at the forthcoming Commission meeting, and this
work might entail detailed analysis in several committees, including the food inspection and
certification committee.
33. The representative of Canada informed the Committee of draft Canadian regulations to
improve nutrition information on food labels (G/TBT/N/CAN/8) and invited other Members'
comments.  Comments could be submitted to the Canadian enquiry point till 14 September 2001.
Small businesses would be provided with an additional year to comply with the requirements, giving
them three years in total to achieve compliance.G/TBT/M/24
Page 7
34. The representative of the United States reiterated her interest in receiving information from
the EC on the proposal to ban nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries.  She recalled that her delegation
had made repeated requests to the EC for clarification on the scientific basis or rationale of the
proposed ban and its consideration of alternatives.  She emphasized the importance of transparency to
ensure a meaningful opportunity to comment.  She re called that it had been two years since she first
raised concerns on this proposal.  However, no notification had yet been made.
35. The representatives of Canada and Egypt  associated themselves with the comments made by
the US.
36. The representative of the European Communities explained that the draft had been made
available at a very early stage of its preparation.  A number of comments on the draft had been
received.  However, it was not possible to make a notification at the present moment since the draft
regulation was still under preparation and internal discussion between experts and various authorities.He welcomed further comments and ensured that they would be taken into account.
37. The representative of the United States raised concerns on the draft EC Measuring Instrument
Directive which she believed to be departing from the widely used standards developed by the
International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIM L).  She sought information as to when the
proposed Directive would be notified and opportunities for comments would be provided.
38. The representative of the European Communities would need to verify if the measure should
have been notified or not, and if it was the case, notification would be made in the near future.  He
informed the Committee that the relevant text ha d been made available in the Commission Internet
site since September 2000, and the proposal was not expected to enter into force before 2004.  He
noted the related work under way in the OIML, and anticipated development in this area.
39. The representative of the United States recalled that her delegation had raised concerns on the
protocols to the European agreements on conformity assessment (PECAS) (G/TBT/W/152 in
November 2000).  She noted that the agreem ent between the EC w ith Hungary and the
Czech Republic had been concluded, but it had not been notified under Article 10.7 to the Committee.
She believed PECAS contained restrictive origin requirements and would discriminate against
products from third countries not justified under the TBT Agreement.  She continued to seek
clarification from the EC, Hungary or the Czech Republic on the rationale for the origin requirements
and the timing of the notification.
40. The representative of Canada believed the introduction of rules of origin in PECAS could
negate Canada's benefits under the Canada-EC mutu al recognition agreement (MRA).  It would be a
step back from the concept of the European common market.  Canada expected that the improved
access for Canadian products gained under the Canada-EU MRA could be extended to countriesacceding to the European Union.  There was no safety or technical reason to deny access for Canadian
products to the EU extended territory, since the produc ts would have already been tested and accepted
by European union authorities under the Canada-EC MRA.  He found no logical rationale in the
additional testing requirements under PECAS.
41. The representative of the European Communities noted the concerns raised by the US and
Canada, and recalled that his delegation had already replied to the questions raised at the last meeting.
His authorities had been in touch with the US Department of Commerce and USTR in order to clarify
the provisions and functioning of these agreements.  He explained that PECAS were interim
agreements (with an average duration of around three years) to prepare countries for accession to the
European Union.  They were familiarization agreements for candidate countries to align with EClegislations.  He believed PECAS provided an impr ovement to exporters interested in the EU market
and those of its applicant countries through an early harmonization of requirements, as it permitted
economies of scale and removed barriers to trade.  He confirmed that PECAS had currently beenG/TBT/M/24
Page 8
concluded with Hungary and the Czech Republic.  The first one had entered into force in June 2001,
and the latter would enter in July 2001.  The notification of these agreements was under preparation.
42. The representative of Australia drew atte ntion to documents G/TBT/2/Add.8/Rev.1 and
Suppl.1 (an update of Australia's notification under Article 15.2).  The Australian arrangement was a
cooperation between federal, state and territory authorities sharing specified responsibilities under theAustralian constitution in the field of standards and regulations.  This situation could be met by other
Members, particularly developing country Members to implement the Agreement, as well as in the
context of the provision of technical assistance.
43. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to G/TBT/Notif.00/342, a
notification on a draft regulation in Hong Kong, China which required taxis registered
after 1 January 2001 to be equipped only with positive ignition engines.  His delegation had made
comments on the notification and had received responses.  He supported the objective to strengthenenvironmental protection and to improve air quality.  However, he was concerned about the measure
applied.  It might be counter-productive for long-term protection by introducing mandatory
requirements to equip taxis with certain engines only.  He believed the use of newer engines and fuel
technologies could also meet the emission requirements as laid down in the regulation.  Hong Kong,
China should avoid a ban on any other technology.  EC would further study the response received and
might come back to this in the future.
44. The representative of Hong Kong, China would convey the EC comments to his authorities.
45. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to G/TBT/Notif.00/580, a
notification concerning the designation of a new gene ric fibre name in the US called "synterra".  This
proposal amended Rule 7 of the rules and regulations under the Textile Fibre Products IdentificationAct to designate a new generic fibre name and establish a new generic definition for a fibre
manufactured by a specific company.  The new name "synterra" had been suggested for the fibre
described as polylactide and refered to as "PLA".  European industry argued that the name lacked
sufficient reference to the chemical composition of the fibre or to its physical properties, but instead
gave the impression of being a commercial trade name.  Quantitative and qualitative analysis methodsto determine the fibre in textile blends had not been  provided.  It would be difficult to identify such
fibre and to check in the market place on whether labelling bearing such name was correctly carried
out.  The EC had sent comments to the US in February 2001, but regretted that no reply had been
received.
46. The representative of the United States took note of the comments made.
47. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to a notification from
Indonesia concerning food labelling (G/TBT/Notif.00/478 of 29 September 2000).  The EC had
submitted comments on this legislation which covered food as well as wines and spirits.  He believed
that certain general requirements imposed on food should not be applied to wines and spirits, in
particular concerning labelling.  He believed this would be an example for the reflection of the
Committee on the need to develop guidelines on label ling to prevent technical barriers to trade.  He
would come back to the issue in the light of any reply received from Indonesia.
48. The representative of Indonesia took note of the comments made and would reply as soon as
possible.
49. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/TBT/M/24
Page 9
III. FOLLOW-UP OF THE MEETING ON PROCEDURES FOR INFORMATION
EXCHANGE
50. The Chairman reported to the Committee under his own responsibility on the outcome of the
Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange held on 28 June 2001 (Annex 1).  He
summarized the following proposals made for the consideration of the Committee:  (i) The creation ofa central depository for notifications on the WTO web site, which would enable Members to fill in
their notification forms on the Internet and send th em instantaneously to the Secretariat.  The
depository would increase the efficiency of the Agreement's transparency provisions;  (ii) the
preparation by the Secretariat of a booklet on transparency provisions of the TBT Agreement, similar
to the one under the SPS Agreement;  (iii) the placing of the list of TBT enquiry points on-line
whereby Members could themselves update it;  and (iv) the reflection on the languages to be used on
the requests and replies relating to enquiry points.  In some cases, replies provided by enquiry pointswere in native language, and could create problems.  The Committee might wish to consider how best
to address this, such as to recommend replies to be made in one of the WTO languages.
51. The representative of Uruguay found the special meeting useful.  He was interested in the
Canadian presentation and its "export alert" system on notifications.  He believed it could serve as a
model for other Members and technical cooperation.  He supported the proposals on the handbook oftransparency provisions and to update on-line information on enquiry points.
52.  The representative of Switzerland appreciated the meeting.  An expert from the Swiss
enquiry point had attended and had been able to share experience on how enquiry points functioned.
He appreciated in particular the Canadian presentation, since it had been his delegation's idea to
develop a similar mechanism in the Swiss enquiry point.  The information provided at the meetingcould serve as a basis for further exchange.  He reiterated his delegation's concerns on the way written
comments to notifications were handled.  He believed that discussions should take place, if so
requested, and written answers should be provided following receipts of written comments.  He
regretted that this was not always the case.  He welcomed the proposal to develop a handbook on
transparency provisions, and suggested reflecting his delegation's above-mentioned concerns in thehandbook.
53. The representative of Chile found the Canadian system to distribute notifications to alert
exporters useful.  He believed it was an important part of the notification provisions - the obligation to
notify and the opportunity for the private sector to be aware of the notifications.  He agreed with
Uruguay that the Canadian system could serve as a sort of technical assistance arrangement between
Canada and other Members, including Chile.  Concerning the proposal to set up a central depository
for notifications, he thought that a parallel system could be established to enable Members to be awareof work under way on draft regulations in other Members before the actual notifications were issued.
This mechanism could ease the problems relating to delays in translation and circulation.
54. The representative of the Philippines thanked New Zealand for organizing the attendance of a
number of APEC Members in the meeting.  The meeting assisted Members to realize what needed to
been done to fulfill their transparency obligations.  He welcomed future meetings of this sort.
55. The representative of Canada thanked the positive reaction expressed on the Canadian "export
alert" system and invited interested Members to contact the Canadian enquiry point.  He had been
approached by a number of delegations and would be pleased to work with them on this subject.
Referring to the proposal to create a central depository system for notifications, he informed the
Committee that Canada was developing a project called Government on-line (targeted for 2004).  Thisproject intended to provide opportunities to consumers, industry and the general public to interact
with the Canadian government (such as in terms of doing business for the government) by means of
e-commerce.  He believed that was an efficient an d effective way to communicate, such as to provide
multiply database links.  He indicated his delegation's willingness to work with the Secretariat inG/TBT/M/24
Page 10
trying to elaborate similar system to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the notification
system and in other areas.  He informed the Committee of an APEC project related to the
implementation of the Agreement undertaken by Ne w Zealand.  He believed the project could
contribute to the ongoing work of the Committee.  It had enabled a number of APEC developing
country members to participate in TBT meetings.  Part of the project related to transparencyprovisions could make a contribution to the preparation of the proposed handbook.
56. The representative of Peru thanked APEC for financing her participation in the meeting.  She
was interested in the Canadian "export alert" system, and would contact Canada to seek assistance for
the establishment of such a system in Peru to facilitate the transmission of information to domestic
producers and exporters.  She appreciated the ISO presentation, in particular the part related to the
establishment of a web site in national standardizing bodies, and believed that the ISO Mediterranean-
2000 project to enhance electronic information exchange could be introduced to other regions.  Shewould explore with ISO on the possibility of obtaining such technical assistance.
57. The representative of Botswana found the presentations at the meeting of a high standard and
congratulated the Chairman for his summary.  He supported the concept of a central depository for
notifications to facilitate the procedures.  He appreciated ISO's efforts to assist developing countries
in information exchange, and looked forward to its response on the possibility of extending theMediterranean project to other regions, so that more developing countries could take part in electronic
communication and benefit from it.  He supported the proposal to update the enquiry points
information on line.  He could understand concerns expressed on the languages to be used to respond
to requests at enquiry points.  He looked forward to the future work of the Committee in these areas.
58. The representative of Zimbabwe thanked the organizers and the sponsors of the meeting.  She
found the presentations and discussions useful and could reflect upon Zimbabwe's concerns.  She
informed the Committee that the enquiry point of her country was taking shape, and believed the
information obtained at the meeting could assist its work and meeting TBT obligations.
59. The representative of the United States appreciated the special meeting and was particularly
interested in the Canadian presentation.  She supported further exploration of the proposal on a central
depository for notification, and found the idea of sending notifications instantaneously to other
Members and the Secretariat interesting.  Ways could be found to facilitate the dissemination of
information during holiday periods.  Referring to the proposal for a handbook on transparency
provisions, she had doubt on the Swiss comments on how Members should respond to comments, and
believed there was a need for further reflection.  The Secretariat should be careful not to interpret the
provisions of the Agreement when developing such a handbook.  She found the SPS handbook
lengthy, and had doubts about the need for such a lengthy handbook for the TBT Agreement.  Theprocedures on information exchange had been clearly articulated in a number of documents and the
job could be just to put them together in  one handbook without further interpretation.
60. The representative of Malaysia found the meeting useful and noted the active participation of
Members.  She believed the proposals made contained useful elements which could further improve
information exchange.  She recalled that an issue had been raised relating to the adequacy of 60 dayscomment period on notifications.  She was particularly concerned about cases where the dates given
for comments were after the entering into force of the legislations.  She was not sure of the
retrospective nature and the validity of comments made because the legislations had already been put
in force.  She welcomed Canada's offer to further clarify its "export alert" system, and looked forward
to receiving further information.
61. The representative of Mexico appreciated the meeting and thanked the Members who had
contributed fundings to assist participation of experts in charge of transparency provisions from
capitals.  Concerning the proposal to establish a central depository for notifications, his delegation
regarded it constructive and would explore it.  However, he pointed out that in many cases, theG/TBT/M/24
Page 11
coordination between capitals and Geneva representations could serve as a filter to avoid bringing in
issues which were not within the scope of the Agreement.
62. The representative of Egypt joined the others in congratulating the Chairman on a successful
meeting and a report which reflected the various sessions.  He stressed the importance of developing
countries being engaged in technical cooperation with developed countries in information technology.Egypt was interested in seeking cooperation with Canada, in particular with respect to the export alert
system.  He shared the concern expressed by Malaysia on comment periods.
63. The representative of New Zealand found the meeting and the Chairman's summary report
useful, and believed the Committee should further explore the proposals made.  With respect to the
possible preparation of a booklet on transparency provisions and the ongoing work in APEC (as
suggested by Canada), New Zealand was ready to provide assistance, should the Committee decide to
go ahead with such an exercise, and encouraged other Members to do the same.
64. The representative of Mongolia (from Mongolian national standards body and enquiry point)
appreciated her first chance to participate in TBT meetings, and believed the experience was useful
for her future work.  She looked forward to future opportunities to share experience and learn from
other enquiry points, such as the one in Canada.
65. The representative of Mexico congratulated Canada on its presentation.  Mexico had a similar
programme with information on standardization programmes placed on an Internet database opened to
the public.  He believed that in order to make the programme successful, a joint effort with the private
sector was necessary.  In most developing countries, it was important to change the culture and
involve the private sector in this information exchange exercise.
66. The representative of the European Communities found the meeting and the presentations
useful.  He was interested in the Canadian presen tation, which had stimulated ideas on what could be
done with information technology.  He reiterated the importance of Members implementing the
provisions on enquiry points and linked it to the demand-driven technical assistance programme to be
developed by the Committee.  He believed that was one of the key areas to be addressed.  His
delegation had been contacted by a number of Members requesting information on the EC system.The EC operated a regional system for 15 Member States in 11 languages.  He believed regional
arrangements could be an approach to technical assistance.  He was ready to provide information on
the EC facilities and on plans with developing countries.
67. The representative of Korea appreciated the meeting and associated himself with the idea of
creating a central depository of notifications.
68. The representative of the ISO welcomed the interest expressed on the ISO presentation, in
particular the part concerning the Mediterranean project.  The project was conducted under the
auspices and financial support of UNCTAD.  It was part of a broader project to stimulate growth and
competitiveness of small and medium enterprises.  ISO would report to UNCTAD and explore
possible resources to extend the programme to other regions.
69. The Chairman proposed to retain this agenda item for the upcoming meeting to facilitate
further consultations.
70. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/TBT/M/24
Page 12
IV. UPDATING BY OBSERVER (WHO/FAO CODEX ALIMENTARIUS)
71. The representative of WHO/FAO Codex Alimentarius provided updated information on
activities of the Codex Alimentarius commission a nd FAO technical assistance.  He highlighted new
FAO and WHO initiatives related to the improvement of food safety and quality which would resultin recommendations for the reinforcement of Codex work in areas dealing with food-borne illnesses.
He anticipated that these activities would continue  to be under the Codex Committee on food hygiene
and task force on animal feeding dealing with risk management and under various Codex Committees.
The Commission had instructed several Committees (i.e. on inspections, certification and traceability)
to deal with these issues.  A proposal had been made to establish a food safety and quality facility in
LDCs and the relevant information could be found on the FAO web site.  These initiatives aimed not
only to assist LDCs in participating in Codex work  but also help them to improve the quality and
safety of their food for both domestic consumers and for export markets.
72. He anticipated that the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission would be
participated by 100 Codex Member Governments and 40 international governmental and non-
governmental organizations.  The Commission's st rategic framework and the Chairperson's proposed
action plan would be presented.  The objectives, in addition to technical assistance, would include thepromotion of the following:  sound regulatory framew orks;  the application of scientific principles of
risk analysis;  linkages and collaboration with other multilateral regulatory instruments;  capacity to
respond effectively and expeditiously to new issues in the food sector;  membership and participation
in Codex activities and the application of Codex standards.  Other issues which could be of interest to
the Committee included the relation between the Commission with NGOs and IGOs, risk analysis,
precaution as well as Codex decision-making process.
V. FOLLOW-UP OF THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
73. The representative of Switzerland recalled that at the Second Triennial Review, labelling
issues had been identified as an area of concern in the Committee.  Labelling and marking
requirements had been regularly subject to discussions in the Committee, and at the present meeting, a
number of labelling issues had been brought to the attention of the Committee.  Switzerland believed
that there was a need to discuss the matter in detail, and had prepared a paper (G/TBT/W/162) which
had also been presented in the meeting of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE).
74. She drew attention to an editorial modification in paragraph 21, that reference should be made
to paragraph 16, rather than paragraph 13.  In Switzerland's view, there was no doubt that markingand labelling requirements were covered by the TB T Agreement.  There were two sets of provisions
referring to marking and labelling.  Firstly, the definition of technical regulations and standards in
Annex I contained a clear reference to these kinds of requirements.  Secondly, they were also covered
by the provisions on conformity assessment.  The concerns raised by some Members on the existing
marking or labelling schemes implied that it was not  clear to what extent the TBT obligations applied
to the various schemes.  There was a need to identify and discuss the questions so as to improve the
current unsatisfying situation.  Such a discussion should take into account concerns raised by
developing country Members on the proliferation of labelling schemes that had the potential to
become disguised barriers to trade.  However, labelling requirements responding to certain consumers'
demands could be used as an instrument to promote market access.  A possible harmonization of theserequirements could further improve market access.  Another concern that needed to be addressed was
the possible misuse of marking and labelling requirements for protectionist purposes and deceptive
practices.G/TBT/M/24
Page 13
75. She had identified the following issues bearing uncertainties in the application of the
Agreement, and believed that they could serve as a starting point for future discussions:  (i) the
Agreement referred to mandatory requirements as technical regulations and voluntary ones as
standards.  She found the distinction between the two was not always clear, since a voluntary label
might become de facto a mandatory requirement if the producer wished to gain access to a specific
segment of the market.  It seemed inconsistent th at with regard to national treatment, the level of
obligation under the Agreement differed for those two categories;  (ii) with respect to marking and
labelling related to PPMs, she believed the terminol ogy of the Agreement was not precise.  It was not
clear whether PPMs labelling, in particular labelling of PPMs not related to the product, was covered
by the Agreement.  Furthermore, the distinction between labels based on the characteristics of the
product, on product related PPMs and on non-product related PPMs was not clear;  (iii) the legitimate
objective of "consumer information" for many labelling requirements was not explicitly mentioned inthe Agreement under Article 2.2.  However, it could be argued that consumer information is a central
element for the prevention of deceptive practices.  The Swiss paper was not intended to provide
answers to the above questions.  In order to bring an end to the uncertainties, it suggested a profound
discussion on these issues.  This could contribute to a better common understanding on the issues and
could assist preventing marking and labelling requirements being used for protectionist purposes.Market access could be further facilitated, in particular for products from developing countries.
76. The representative of Canada reiterated his delegation's support for a broader-based dialogue
on the labelling issue in the Committee, without prejudice to its outcome.  Canada was concerned
about the proliferation of labelling requirements based on non-product related PPMs, such as the
proposals by the EC on genetically modified food and on eco-labelling, by the Netherlands on forestproducts and by Belgium to indicate social responsible production.  He believed that a comprehensive
dialogue on labelling could assist in addressing specific concerns, such as those related to the
notification process.  However, Canada did not support the idea of considering labelling as an issue
for negotiations, nor its need for clarifying documents (i.e. guidelines), but rather to have a better
understanding of the current TBT disciplines.  His delegation would submit a paper before theOctober meeting, and would approach the issue not only from the context of the Agreement, but also
in terms of when, how, and why Members adopted mandatory labelling requirements.  It would also
cover issues such as good regulatory practice and implementation implication regarding labelling
requirements, particularly if they related to non-product related PPMs.
77. He supported further studies on the effects of mandatory labelling requirements in the
marketplace to ensure that these requirements, when  needed, were effective, meeting their legitimate
objectives and designed in a non-discriminatory manner.  Mandatory labels should not be misused forprotectionist purposes or deceptive practices.  He agreed that developing countries' concerns should
be addressed.  He noted the relevant work of the ISO and believed that international standards could
be an instrument to harmonize labelling requirements.  While the Swiss paper provided a reference for
a dialogue, he believed that it raised many que stions.  He would provide written comments on the
paper, and proposed to hold a half-day informal consultation on this subject matter.
78. The representative of Hong Kong, China prov ided preliminary comments on the Swiss paper,
and could not agree on the following points:  (i) he  believed the distinction between mandatory and
voluntary labelling requirements under the Agreement was clear.  He accepted the fact that the
bearing of a label on a product under a voluntary scheme might affect the perception and choices of
consumers.  However, this did not alter the nature of the labelling requirement;  (ii) he noted that theSwiss paper had categorized labels into three types (i.e. based on the characteristics of a product, on
product related PPMs and on non-product related PPMs).  He believed while it was important to
maintain the distinction, such division might upset the balance of rights and obligations under the
Agreement and have implications on the like product concept of the GATT;  and (iii) regarding
whether consumer information was a legitimate objective under Article 2.2, he believed that it couldonly be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, since the provision had provided an indicative list.G/TBT/M/24
Page 14
79. The representative of Chile believed that labelling was an element under the Agreement, and
if there was any doubt in its interpretation or the extension of its application, the Committee was the
forum to deal with it.  He welcomed a frank discussion, but would not like to prejudge its outcome.
He supported the proposal to hold a special session in October to discuss this topic.
80. The representative of Mexico noted that labelling was a subject matter causing concerns
among developing countries.  He could not support some points contained in the Swiss paper (on
which his delegation had made comments at the CTE meeting).  He could not understand why
Switzerland considered that there was a lack of clarity in the provisions of the TBT Agreement.  He
was not convinced by the argument put forward, and believed that the provisions were clear, and
reflected a delicate balance between rights and obligations of Members.  Annex 1 of the Agreement
provided definitions covering labelling, and the relevant provisions stated the rights and obligations of
Members as applied to labelling.  He supported the view that labelling schemes could be useful attimes, but could often create barriers to trade, in particular for developing countries.  Harmonization
of these schemes by following the principles of the Agreement to use international standards could
improve the situation.  He agreed that sometimes these schemes were applied in a protectionist way,
but could not agree that this was due to a lack of cl arity of the Agreement.  Instead, he believed it was
due to the improper implementation of WTO principles.  These principles had been reflected inparagraph 15 of the Swiss paper, although he disagreed with the concept of proportionality indicated
there.  He asked if proportionality was under the concept of necessity as stipulated in Article 2 of the
Agreement.
81. He agreed that in some cases, voluntary schemes could be dubious in their voluntary or
mandatory nature.  He understood that mandatory laws were requirements which had to be conformedwith, although certain voluntary schemes might cont ain obligations.  It depended on how the schemes
were implemented, and whether they linked to specific regulations.  He believed this should be
examined in the light of the provisions of WTO Agreements.  Referring to marking and labelling
requirements based on PPMs, he was clear that the definition of technical regulation under the
TBT Agreement did cover PPMs directly related to the product, and in a logical sequence ofinterpretation, it meant that those PPMs not related to the product were not the subject of the
definition.  He insisted that the provision was clear.  He welcomed the Swiss suggestion that any work
in the Committee on labelling should aim at facilitating access to markets for developing countries
and avoiding protectionism.  The Committee should discuss matters which were of concern to
Members and within its terms of reference.  The discussions on labelling should be a learning exercise
to exchange ideas.  He supported the Swiss view (paragraph 28 of G/TBT/W/162) that such a
discussion could contribute to facilitating market access for products originating in developingcountries;  ensuring that marking or labelling requirements are not misused for protectionist purposes
or deceptive practices;  and identifying major markin g and labelling schemes with a view to providing
a basis for a possible international harmonization to further facilitating trade.  However, to clarify
certain provisions of the Agreement would be a different exercise and would cause concerns and
reservations.
82. The representative of Korea welcomed the Swiss contribution, and agreed that labelling was
an important issue which needed further discussion.  Bearing in mind the ambiguous provisions in the
TBT Agreement, the Committee should address the matter.  He believed the Swiss paper was a good
starting point.  The consumers' right to know was the basis for labelling requirements and many
consumers' protection groups were making their voice heard.  As technology evolved, consumers
requested more information about products and their production methods.  Their interests should be
taken into account in the discussion of the Committee.  He noted the work being done in relevant
organizations such as the Codex and ISO.  The question on the legitimate objectives underlying
labelling requirements was an important one.  "Prevention of deceptive practices" provided for under
Article 2.2 could give the contextual support to this.  He noted that the discussions on labelling hadbeen going on for a while.  In order to facilitate progress in the discussion, he supported the view toG/TBT/M/24
Page 15
limit the scope of the discussion for the time being to exclude non-product related PPMs issues.  The
Committee should pursue a policy-oriented approach rather than a legalistic one in the discussion.
83. The representative of Thailand, while agreeing that labelling requirements had been
increasingly raised in the Committee as impediments to trade, believed that problems could be
avoided if the principles of the Agreement were fully respected.  He agreed with Switzerland that theAgreement provided for the instrument to guard against protectionism.  The discussion on the
labelling issue in the Committee could contribute to market access facilitation for products from
developing countries.  Regarding the mandatory or voluntary nature of labelling requirements, he
thought it was a matter of choice of the authorities and producers involved.  If the requirement was a
voluntary standard, it was up to the producers to decide whether to enter into a market, and once the
decision was made, they had to follow the rules.  If it was a mandatory technical regulation, the
producers did not have any choice but to follow the requirements.  He agreed with Hong Kong, Chinathat voluntary labels could affect consumers' preference.
84. He could not agree with Switzerland on the question concerning the distinction between
technical regulations and standards (paragraph 19 of the Swiss paper), and emphasized that one
should not mix up the nature of a measure with its result.  Article 4.1 of the Agreement stipulated that
Members' obligations "with respect to the complian ce of standardizing bodies with the provisions of
the Code of Good Practice shall apply irrespective of whether or not a standardizing body has
accepted the Code".  Both the Code and Article 2 provided the principle of non-discrimination, thus,
whether a labelling requirement was a mandatory technical regulation or a voluntary standard, the
importing Member would have the obligation to ensure national treatment to imported products.
Article III of GATT also provided Members' obligations to treat imported products not less favourablethan that accorded to like-products of national origin in respect of laws, regulations and requirements.
He considered the TBT Agreement (including the legitimate objectives as stipulated in Article 2.2)
was sufficient to deal with labelling issues, and opposed to any negotiation or amendment to its text,
in particular if it linked with issues such as social clause and non-product related PPMs.
85. The representative of the United States could not agree with certain points of the Swiss paper.
She questioned in particular the fundamental assertion that further clarification of the Agreement was
needed.  She drew attention to a US paper on labe lling (G/TBT/W/165) which recalled the discussions
in the Committee and categorised the types of labelling-related trade issues as well as concerns
expressed by Members.  The concerns related to transparency, choice of approaches for achieving
regulatory objectives and practical compliance issues.  Based on the issues raised, the US experience
and the Swiss paper, she could not come to the conclusion that there was problem with the Agreement
and the need for its clarification.  She did not object to a discussion on labelling, and supported theproposal to hold informal consultations in October.
86. The representative of Japan appreciated the labelling papers submitted by Switzerland and the
United States, and supported further discussions on the issue.
87. The representative of Guatemala considered that the discussion on labelling should take place
exclusively in the Committee, and agreed with Mexico that it should be based on the Agreement.  It
should be a learning process without prejudging the outcome, and should take into account the work
being done in other international bodies.
88. The representative of Malaysia noted that both the Swiss and United States' papers pointed
out that labelling requirements were becoming increasingly disguised restrictions to trade.  The Swiss
paper indicated that certain provisions of the Agreement should be clarified in order to address theseconcerns.  It pointed out a number of problems, such as the divergent national and regional labelling
requirements and the misuse of these requirements for protectionist purposes.  It also pointed out that
these requirements could offer market access opportunities for developing countries.  She found these
points contradictory.  If labelling requirements were of no great concern and could be seen asG/TBT/M/24
Page 16
opportunities for market access (also stated in the EU paper - G/TBT/W/150), what was the urgency
of discussing TBT provisions in relation to labelling?
89. The Swiss paper had identified the following provisions related to labelling requirements:
Article 2.1 on non-discrimination;  Article 2.2 on neces sity and proportionality;  Article 2.4 on the use
of international standards;  Article 2.9 on notification requirements;  Article 10 on the provision ofinformation;  Article 11 on technical assistance;  and Article 12 on special and differential treatment.
Given the clear indication on how the provisions were adequately addressing labelling requirements,
she was not convinced of the need to further clarif y the Agreement.  Instead, she believed that the
increasing trade-restrictiveness of some labelling requirements could be seen as a problem that certain
TBT provisions had not been implemented.  What was needed would be the proper application of
TBT provisions to labelling requirements to help resolving the problems.  She agreed with Thailand
that existing TBT provisions were sufficient and that further clarification and changing of rules wasunnecessary.  She shared the Canadian concerns on the proliferation of non-product related PPMs
labelling requirements.  She would not be opposed to further informal discussion on the issue, and
agreed that it should be a process for education without prejudging the outcome.
90. The representative of the Czech Republic supported further dialogue to clarify the TBT rules
related to mandatory and voluntary labelling requirements, and supposed that certain sectors could be
used as examples during the discussions.
91. The representative of Egypt believed that widening the scope of the Agreement could not
solve the problems of developing countries and SMEs on labelling.  On the contrary, this might create
unnecessary obstacles to trade since labelling requirements could be used as a disguised restriction.
He pointed out that the Agreement contained provisions to address labelling, and agreed with Canada,Thailand and Malaysia that the provisions were enough to provide disciplines for these requirements
and there was no need to amend the Agreement.  The Swiss paper suggested that marking and
labelling schemes could serve as market access tools.  However, the paper did not demonstrate how
they could increase market access opportunities.  In particular, developing countries had to face the
increasing costs imposed on them due to these requirem ents.  He recalled that at the Second Triennial
Review, it had been recognized that developing coun tries' interests and concerns should be taken into
account in the application of labelling schemes.  Egypt was prepared to participate in further
discussions on the issue.
92. The representative of the European Communities believed although there was no immediate
consensus on a possible outcome of the discussion on labelling, there was a common view that the
issue deserved an exchange of views in the Committee.  The Swiss paper reflected the need to clarify
the TBT rules.  He noted the increased number of notifications and specific cases discussed in theCommittee related to labelling, and believed that in the interest of all Members, it was necessary to
address the issue without delay.  At the same time, it would not be helpful, if such discussions would
not result in some sort of guidelines in labelling requirements.  Further clarification of the Agreement
could reduce the risk of labelling being abused for protectionist purposes.  It would promote a
predictable and trade-friendly regulation as well as reduce trade frictions.  The aim of the exerciseshould not be to expand or weaken the existing TBT rules, but to define clearly what they were, how
they functioned and what was not allowed.
93. The EC, like Switzerland wished to clarify the following points:  (i) the scope of the
Agreement with respect to its coverage on non-product related PPMs.  He noted the US paper was
silent on this point;  (ii) what were the legitimate objectives and how best to avoid unnecessarybarriers to trade, whether through international standards or other means;  (iii) how to share
experience with developing countries as well as to enhance technical assistance and capacity building
in this area.  He noted that the Swiss paper had provided some elements for a debate, and recalled that
the EC paper had proposed, as a first step, that Members exchange information on labelling as well asG/TBT/M/24
Page 17
examining the work in relevant international bodies.  He supported the idea of holding discussions on
the issue at the upcoming meeting and that it should be held in a more structured manner.
94. The representative of the Philippines affirmed that labelling was an important subject to his
delegation.  He could not agree with the Swiss paper stating that it was unclear on how TBT
provisions applied to marking and labelling schemes.  He had reservations on the conclusion that thissituation had led to legal uncertainty and would weaken the operation of the Agreement.  He sought
an answer on what the legal uncertainty would be .  He shared the developing country view that
labelling requirements were often inclined to be used as trade protectionist measures rather than
market access enhancing measures.  He also expressed reservation on the assumption made in the
Swiss paper that consumers were willing to pay hi gher prices for certain labelled products and this
could lead to higher profits for producers and exporters.  He argued that even if consumers were
willing to pay, it did not necessary lead to higher benefits for producers and exporters, as that marginwould be consumed by the cost to comply with the labelling requirements.  He echoed the view of
Hong Kong, China that the distinction laid down in the Agreement between technical regulations and
standards was clear, and there was no need for further elaboration.  He would not be opposed to a
discussion on the issue which could serve as an educational process for Members, but it should not
lead to a negotiation to widen the scope of the Agreement.
95. The representative of Australia was aware of the concerns of a number of Members about the
potential of labelling (including food labelling) requirements being applied in a manner that could
result in unjustifiable trade restrictions.  However, she did not consider that any case had been made
for reviewing or amending the Agreement.  Ther e was no evidence to suggest that the Agreement
could not address any dispute that might arise in this area.  None of the issues raised in the US andSwiss papers were incapable of being addressed under the current provisions.  Australia could join the
consensus to discuss the issues on the basis that there would be no prejudgement of or commitment to
specific outcomes, including to clarify the rules of the Agreement or to develop guidelines.
96. The representative of Canada sought clarification on whether the EC was prepared to include
non-product related PPMs issues in the labelling discussions.
97. The representative of the European Communities clarified that although in the EC submission
(G/TBT/W/150), in November 2000, it had indicated that there was no intention to include issues such
as eco-labelling, his delegation was open to deal with issues related to non-product related PPMs in
future discussions.
98. The representative of Switzerland welcomed the discussion and comments made.  He noted
the complexity of the issue and the need for structur ed discussions in order not to lose sight of what
was aimed at to be achieved.  He reaffirmed that the TBT Agreement was the WTO Agreement whichlaid down provisions related to marking and labell ing requirements.  The reason as to why the Swiss
paper had also been presented to the CTE was due to the fact that eco-labelling was part of the CTE
mandate.  He supported holding a half-day informal discussion on the labelling issue in October 2001.
99. The Chairman noted the need for further discussions on the issue of labelling and agreed to
hold a half-day informal session on it.
100. The representative of Canada introduced a Canadian paper (G/TBT/W/167) on "A Policy
Framework for Mutual Recognition Activity".  He recalled the Committee's request at the Second
Triennial Review for Members to supply informat ion on their mechanisms for the acceptance of
conformity assessment results.  The paper provided Canadian experience on mutual recognition
activities in an effort to decrease non-tariff barrie rs to trade associated with standards, technical
regulations and conformity assessment procedures.  Canada had entered into mutual recognition
agreements (MRAs) and arrangements covering a vari ety of industrial sectors, and had come to the
conclusion that the negotiation and implementation of MRAs was a labour intensive process.  NeitherG/TBT/M/24
Page 18
the federal government nor other key players of MRAs process (such as regulatory agencies and
subnational jurisdictions) could respond positively to all MRA related requests.  As a result, it had
been decided that a clear domestic criterion for MRA activities was important to ensure that these
activities reflected Canadian economic interests as well as those of the Canadian stakeholders.
101. The following considerations had been identified  to establish the priorities for future MRA
related activities in Canada:  tangible economic benefits;  determination of the most appropriate
regulatory tool;  support from key players and stakeholders underlying compatibility in the regulatory
systems of the potential MRAs partners;  and sufficient resources for MRAs negotiation and
implementation.  The framework also outlined Canadian priorities for future MRA activities.  At
present, Canada would focus on the implementation of existing MRAs.  He invited other Members to
consider the policy issues outlined in the paper and to discuss the substantive concerns, constraints
and benefits related to MRAs which was one of the approaches identified to facilitate the acceptanceof results for conformity assessment (Annex 5 of G/TBT/9).
102. The representative of Guatemala informed the Committee of the establishment of its national
enquiry point.
103. The Secretariat would update the list of enquiry points.
104. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
105. The representative of Brazil informed the Co mmittee that further to the Brazilian paper on
technical assistance and technical cooperation pr ogramme (G/TBT/W/156), and in response to the
invitation at the Second Triennial Review, additional information was provided on technical
assistance projects provided and received by Brazil during 1995-2001 in the areas of metrology,standardization and conformity assessment.
106. The representative of Colombia expressed gratitude to the Secretariat for the organization of a
regional TBT workshop to be held in Bogota on 1-3 August 2001.  The workshop was elaborated and
financed by the IDB for the participation of officials responsible for notifications, standards and
enquiry points from the Andean countries, Central American countries, Cuba and theDominican Republic.  Experts from Chile and Mexico would provide presentations in the areas of
regulation and conformity assessment agreements.  One of the aims of the Workshop was to stimulate
competent bodies to use international standards in the elaboration of technical regulations, conformity
assessment procedures and standards.  The WTO/TBT Agreement would be explained to facilitate
understanding among authorities who would then be able to assist private sectors, in particular
exporters, to better benefit from the TBT Agreement, including its transparency provisions.
Participants would have the opportunity to share experience in the development of internationalstandards, voluntary agreements and technical regulations, as well as the management of enquiry
points.  They could study the possibility of establ ishing mechanisms to disseminate information to
exporters on technical requirements in targeted markets to facilitate adjustment to the requirements
and to increase the competitiveness of exports.  He sought the possibility of including a presentation
(by an expert or through video conference) on the Canadian export alert programme at the workshop.
107. The representative of the European Communities drew attention to document G/TBT/W/163,
a EC paper aimed at identifying practical options for the development of a technical cooperation
programme as agreed at the Triennial Review.  The paper provided ideas on the identification of
needs and options for addressing them.  They had been derived from the EC's experience as a donor
of technical assistance.  His delegation intended to provide an updated list of existing and planned ECtechnical assistance programmes to the Committee in the near future.  He believed the identification
of needs (in both public and private sectors) and to define priorities were important for a successfulG/TBT/M/24
Page 19
demand-driven technical assistance programme.  Needs would vary from country to country, and
technical assistance projects could only be useful if they addressed the right needs.  Donors would
need to continuously re-examine how well the assistance provided addressed the needs identified.  He
identified the following areas to address needs:  (i) increase knowledge;  (ii) infrastructure related
measures;  (iii) support for participation in international activities;  and (iv) regional arrangements.The type of knowledge required would vary from c ountry to country.  The promotion of knowledge
and awareness could be achieved by training activities (for a variety of players in additional to
government authorities or standardization bodies) through information seminars and workshops;
specify training for targeted bodies or individuals;  hands-on training through participation in practical
work and solving practical problems in other countries organizations;  and training of trainers.
108. On infrastructure-related measures, he believed that a functioning infrastructure would enable
countries to make the best use of the Agreement and maximize their potential.  It would be importantto develop the necessary legislation, bodies and a strategy to establish the infrastructure.  The options
identified were:  (i) to assist countries to comply w ith technical regulations of export markets;  (ii) to
develop a general strategy for quality infrastructure;  (iii) to support the development of specific
bodies, e.g. enquiry points;  and (iv) to assist the provision of effective means of communication and
information processing (e.g. e-commerce application, hardware and networks).  He believed thatsupporting participation in international activities (n ot only in standardization but also in other fora
such as accreditation) was an important aspect.  He recalled that regional cooperation was a point
shared by Brazil, and supported the regional approach of the Colombian workshop.  He looked
forward to this type of activity, since most of the existing technical assistance was delivered on a
bilateral or national basis rather than a regional basis.  He believed regional cooperation was anadvantageous way for the development of certain aspects needed for the implementation of the
Agreement.  It could be done through activities such as seminars, workshops and multi-country
groups.
109. The representative of the Philippines drew attention to document G/TBT/W/166, a
submission indicating the assistance the Philippines needed and had received, e.g. from the APLAC
on conformity assessment.  He believed that certa in assistance activities received might have been
duplicated, and agreed that it was important to clearly identify technical assistance needs so that the
needs could be addressed effectively by the assistance provided.
110. The representative of Japan drew attention to document G/TBT/W/160 which explained
Japan's experience in providing technical assistance.  The activities were demand driven based on
requests from developing countries, provided at both bilateral and regional levels.  They included
programmes, such as acceptance of trainees and provision of experts (both short and long term  in
areas of standardization, conformity assessment and metrology).  In order to draw the attention of the
relevant organizations to the importance of technical assistance in TBT areas, it was important that
developing countries gave priority to TBT-relate d assistance in their national technical assistance
request list, since most assistance programmes were demand driven.  He agreed with the EC that more
attention should be given to regional efforts.  He noted APLAC's assistance effort given to the
Philippines, and believed that the various APEC schemes had provided good examples on technical
cooperation in the Asian-Pacific region.
111. The Chairman highlighted the outcome of the informal consultations on technical assistance
held that afternoon.  He would consult with the Chairmen of the General Council and the Committee
on Trade and Development to ensure coordination and avoid duplication of work in this area.  TheSecretariat was requested to compile the submissions from Members on technical assistance and to
design a draft survey on needs identification for the consideration of the Committee at its upcoming
meeting in October when time would be provided to allow further discussion on the matter.
112. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/TBT/M/24
Page 20
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
113. The representative of the European Communities recalled that at the last meeting, a number of
delegations had made comments on the EC paper on precautionary principle (G/TBT/W/154).  He
appreciated the Brazilian view that the precautionary principle was covered under Article 2.2 of theTBT Agreement, although there was no common view on the need for specific discussions linking the
precautionary principle with the Agreement.  His delegation could go along with this position and
would support a discussion at a horizontal level si nce the precautionary principle was enchained in
other WTO Agreements as well.  He believed the conditions in which Members adopted the
precautionary principle were not well defined, and the EC was preparing a paper to express its views
on these questions.  Although the paper might not be submitted to the TBT Committee, he believed it
could be useful for the consideration of Members during discussions in other fora.
114. He noted that precaution had been widely used as a basis for risk management measures in
the environment, health and safety areas.  Such precautionary measures had had and would have the
potential to affect trade both for developing and developed countries.  A clarification by spelling out a
framework for such measures and providing a more explicit backing in the WTO for such measures
would reduce the risk of trade disputes.  The EC paper would address the following issues:  (i) the
application of WTO principles (e.g. non-discrimination and not more trade restrictive than necessary)
when the precautionary approach was applied;  (ii) the role of science in this approach.  Although by
definition, the precautionary approach was applied when science was not conclusive, it was important
that the adoption of such an approach should not opp ose sound science;  (iii) the need to review those
measures in the light of development of scientific knowledge;  (iv) the importance of transparency todraw the attention of other Members to such measures and to provide opportunities for consulting;
and (v) effective measures and actions to address developing countries' concerns on precaution.  The
EC did not see the need to change the scope of the existing WTO rules, but sought greater clarity in
the limits of what would and what would not be WTO compatible, as well as to ensure a consistent
and complementary approach in the different WTO fora on the matter.  There were differentpossibilities for clarifying the relationship between precaution and WTO rules.  The EC had
abandoned the idea of proposing a modification of th e Agreement, but suggested that the clarification
could be done in the form of agreed understanding, interpretation or guidance.
115. The representative of Canada did not support  any form of negotiation on precaution in the
context of the preparations for the Ministerial Conference in Doha or a New Round.  He believed it
unnecessary since the existing rules were clear and balanced as to what was permitted.  However, he
could support discussions in relevant Committees  on how Members apply precaution.  His delegation
had proposed at the SPS Committee that Members exchange experience in managing risks and in
situations of limited scientific information.  The discussion should not involve the revisit nor re-
negotiation of existing provisions of the SPS Agreement.  The objective would be to arrive at a
common understanding on how precaution was addressed within the context of existing rights and
obligations.  He noted also the discussion on this subject in the CTE.  In the environment context,many articulations on precaution were framed in a negative formulation stating that "a lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing actions or decision-making".  He
considered that formulation to be of certain significance, since it did not amend positive obligations.
116. He believed that the application of the precautionary approach must be flexible and
responsive to the needs in each particular circumstance.  Canada had a domestic process in place tofacilitate on-going discussion on these issues.  A document was being prepared for consultations, and
could be accessible on the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade web site
when it was released.  He looked forward to further discussions on the subject in various WTO fora
and in other organizations such as the OECD and United Nations Environment Programme.  He
sought clarification from the EC as to which WTO body it intended to hold the horizontal discussion.He noted that a number of delegations did not believe the TBT Committee was appropriate.  HeG/TBT/M/24
Page 21
believed that precaution in terms of regulatory activity could touch upon issues that the TBT and SPS
Committees had a mandate for.
117. The representative of Australia expressed objection to any discussion on precaution in the
TBT Committee, and believed that the discipli nes of the TBT Agreement provided scope for
precautionary decision-making in relevant circumstances and at the same time limited the possibleover-extension or abuse of the precautionary approach.  This balance was important and should be
maintained.  She considered a science-based approach to be critical, and emphasized that in situations
where science was insufficient for decision-making, non-science based factors should not be used to
overrule the science existed.
118. The representative of the UN/ECE presented the UN/ECE project on a voluntary concept for
regulatory convergence (G/TBT/W/161).  He recalled that the UN/ECE project had been presented for
the information of the TBT Committee last year.  He welcomed the comments made and indicatedthat they had been taken into account when preparing this new draft.  He recalled that at the Second
Triennial Review, the TBT Committee had called  for information exchange on how to reduce
regulatory burdens for business.  Discussions in the TBT Committee and other international fora had
shown that there was a market need for regulatory convergence and there was a plea from businesses
to facilitate market access.  That was the reason why UN/ECE had initiated this project.  He stressedthat the purpose was not to supplement nor to expand the obligations under the TBT Agreement, but
to provide a voluntary mechanism for those coun tries who might wish to harmonize technical
regulations.  He believed the project could contribute to the discussion on regulatory practice in the
Committee.
119. The representative of the United States informed the Committee that because of the objections
of her delegation to the UN/ECE project, the US had withdrawn its participation in the START team
in which the proposal was developed.  She reiterated her concern about the duplication of this project
with the obligations within the framework of the TBT Agreement.  She questioned the need for
developing such a model in the first place, and with the new draft, her concern remained.
120. The representative of the ISO updated the Committee on relevant ISO activities.  He said that
he was regularly requested to report to ISO members and the ISO Council on relevant work of the
Committee.  Noting the results of the Second Triennial Review of the Agreement, the ISO President
had handed to the Director-General of the WTO comments on the Review (G/TBT/W/158).  He had
indicated that the principles for the development of international standards (Annex 4 of the report of
the Triennial Review) were implemented within the ISO to ensure transparency, openness,
impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, as well as coherence without neglecting the
development dimension.  Document G/TBT/W/158 al so described ISO programmes to address the
needs of developing countries.  ISO was ready to provide further information on its programme and
policy.
121. The representative of Japan welcomed the ISO information on how it addressed Annex 4 of
the Second Triennial Review.  He believed this kind of information was useful to the Committee, and
encouraged other relevant observers to provide similar information.
122. The Committee took note of the statements made.
123. The Chairman proposed to hold the next meeting on 8-9 October 2001, with the first day
devoted to informal consultations.G/TBT/M/24
Page 22
ANNEX 1
Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange under
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
28 June 2001
Report by the Chairman
1. In accordance with its mandate to convene biennial meetings on procedures for information
exchange for persons responsible for enquiry points and notifications, the Committee held a meetingon 28 June 2001.  Financial contributions from the European Community, the United Kingdom,
Norway and the Netherlands enabled 15 capital-based officials from developing and least-developed
countries to attend.  A number of participants were also funded by APEC.  The meeting was divided
into five sessions on various aspects of the transparency provisions of the Agreement.  In  Session
One on  Transparency Obligations under the Agreement , the Secretariat presented the relevant
provisions.  It highlighted the three pillars of transparency under the Agreement which consisted of:
publishing, notifying, and responding to enquiries.
2. The presentation explained that various notification obligations existed under the Agreement:
statements of implementation, notifications of draft technical regulations, conformity assessmentprocedures and standards (whether proposed by central or local government bodies), notifications on
bilateral and multilateral agreements that are entered into on matters falling under the coverage of the
Agreement, and notifications on the acceptance and withdrawal from the Code of Good Practice and
on the existence of work programmes.  It was stated  that the notification obligations of the Agreement
are complemented by certain publication requirements to do with publishing notices of draft TBTmeasures, and the work programmes of standardizing bodies.  It was explained that enquiry points had
to be established to respond to enquiries pertaining to technical regulations, standards and conformity
assessment procedures by central, local and non-governmental bodies.  The presentation stressed that
the Committee decisions and recommendations (contained in document G/TBT/1/Rev.7) should guide
Members in implementing their transparency obligations.  It was agreed that the presentation would
be posted on the WTO web site.
3. A number of delegations intervened in Session One to stress the importance of notifying all
measures with a significant impact on trade (including measures proposed by sub-national
authorities), and of having well-functioning enquiry points.  With respect to the latter, it was stressed
that enquiry points should always acknowledge the receipt of enquiries, and that those requesting
information should always identify themselves (the organizations to which they belong, and theircontact details).  It was also recommended that requests only be sent in through one channel so as not
to create confusion and an undue duplication of efforts in responding.  Problems experienced in
opening e-mail attachments were also pointed out.  A suggestion was made that the Secretariat
prepare a booklet on the transparency provisions of the Agreement, similar to the one on SPS.
4. In Session Two on the  Preparation and Circulation of Notifications by the Secretariat and
the WTO Web site , the Secretariat presented the internal procedure followed in processing incoming
notifications, identifying the types of problems conf ronted.  It stated that the following stages were
involved:  (1) the receipt of notifications by the Central Registry of Notifications;  (2) their
channelling to the Trade and Environment Division;  (3) their review, typing/formatting by theDivision (which includes checking to see whether they truly fall under the coverage of the
TBT Agreement rather than the SPS Agreement;  and (4) their forwarding to the Document
Dissemination Facility for translation and distribution.  It was explained that the processing is
sometimes held up by (1) the receipt of incomplete notifications, of notifications containing
contradictory information, and of notifications fa lling under the SPS Agreement, which are all issuesG/TBT/M/24
Page 23
that require verification with the Geneva-based delegation of the notifying country;  (2) the receipt of
notifications in only one official language of WTO, requiring time to be invested in translation;  and
(3) the receipt of notifications through many different channels, whether different divisions in WTO,
or by fax, e-mail and regular mail, which can result in the issuance of duplicate notifications, or in
confusion that can take time to resolve.  The presentation called upon Members to send in theirnotifications electronically in as much as possible to (CRN@WTO.org), and to do so in as many
WTO official languages as they can (particularly when a Member itself has more than one official
language).  It was also stated that attention should be paid to holiday periods where the processing of
notifications could slow down.
5. The WTO web site was also introduced in this session, with a demonstration made of how to
navigate the site, search for and download TBT documents.  It was noted that in the Survey conductedby the Secretariat on the electronic facilities available in enquiry points all except two respondents
had access to electronic facilities.  The WTO web site, to which most respondents had access, could
therefore play an important role in enabling Members to obtain WTO documents speedily.
6. A number of delegations intervened to share problems they were experiencing.  One
delegation stated that the 60-day comment period on notifications was too short, particularly in view
of the fact that legislation often had to be requested from enquiry points and translated prior to being
commented on.  However, another felt that that problem had already been addressed by the fact that
the Committee decisions and recommendations entitled Members to request an extension of the
comment period.  Other problems raised included the fact that a number of enquiry points insisted thatcomments be made in the official language of the country, and it was agreed that more reflection on
this point was needed.  A number of delegations asked that the experiences of other Members in the
functioning of enquiry points be shared with them.  A delegation responded by presenting its
experience and the way in which it channels notifications to professional associations, but
acknowledged that its system presupposed that such structures existed to rely on.
7. In Session Three on the  Electronic Facilities Available in National Enquiry Points of
Members  a representative from the ISO presented the work undertaken by ISO to assist developing
countries in electronic information exchange, which has three components:  (1) the development and
dissemination of a CD-ROM containi ng pre-figured, customizable, web site templates to help national
standardizing bodies establish web sites and deliver information;  (2) a training programme to provide
developing countries with the tools of informat ion technology needed for standardization and the
electronic voting on ISO standards;  and (3) the provision of hardware (for example in the
Mediterranean region).  It was noted that ISO's work could significantly help developing countries
make greater use of the electronic medium.  A question was raised about the possibility of extending
this project to other regions.
8. In Session Four on the  Electronic Transmission of Information among Members , Members
shared their experience on the use of the electronic medium.  A number of delegations stressed that
the use of this medium was critical to facilitating the transmission of information.  One delegation
explained that all its technical regulations have been posted on the Internet, and urged other Members
to do the same.  Another delegation stated that since it began transmitting its notificationselectronically to the Secretariat, the time required for their processing was significantly reduced.  A
number of participants emphasized the importance of greater reliance on electronic exchange.  It was
suggested that Members consider placing the list of enquiry points on-line whereby Members can
themselves update it.
9. In Session Five on  Benefitting from the Transparency Provisions of the Agreement , Canada
explained how its enquiry point operated.  It stated that since clients were enabled to access
documents online without seeking the assistance of the Canadian Enquiry Point, the requests for
regulatory texts declined by over 60%.  Changes made to the way in which the Point operated enabled
it to better service its clients.  The Canadian "Export Alert" system, which disseminated foreignG/TBT/M/24
Page 24
notifications to Canadian stakeholders through a web-enabled application (sending the required
information via e-mail), was also presented.  A number of delegations expressed interest in this
system, and there was a view that this could serve as a basis for future technical cooperation.  Canada
proposed the creation of central depository for notifications on the WTO web site, which would
enable Members to fill in their notification forms on the Internet and send them instantaneously to the
Secretariat.  The depository would increase the efficiency of the Agreement's transparency provisions.
__________