RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/M/19
27 June 2000
(00-2613)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17-19 MAY 2000
Chairman:  Mr. John ADANK (New Zealand)
1. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade held its Twentieth meeting on
17-19 May 2000.
2. The following agenda, contained in WTO/AIR/1297 was adopted:
Page
I. Election of Officer 2
II. Requests for Observer Status in the Committee by the Office International
de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) and the International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) 2
III. Statements on Implementation and Administration of the Agreement 2
IV. Workshop on Technical Assistance and Special and Differential Treatment
in the Context of the TBT Agreement 5
V. Preparation for the Second Triennial Review of the Operation and
Implementation of the Agreement under Article 15.4 8
VI. Other Business 16G/TBT/M/19
Page 2
I. ELECTION OF OFFICER
3. The Committee elected Mr. John Adank (New Zealand) chairman for 2000.
II. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS IN THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE
INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV) AND THE INTERNATIONAL
LABORATORY ACCREDITATION COOPERATION (ILAC)
4. The Chairman indicated that more time was needed for informal consultations on these
requests (G/TBT/W/62, 68, 68/Add. 1 and 2).
5. The Committee agreed to return to the requests at its next meeting.
III. STATEMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AGREEMENT
6. The representative of the United States (US) responded to an earlier statement by Thailand
(G/TBT/W/128), which had been supported by Korea, with respect to proposed US origin marking
requirements for costume jewellery.  She informed the Committee that this had been a provision
within a draft legislation under consideration.  Th is Bill (the Africa Growth and Opportunity Law)
had just been signed into law.  However, the provision concerning origin marking for costume
jewellery was no longer part of that Bill.  She explained that these requirements had not been notified
because they had never become a proposed technical regulation.
7. She responded to concerns raised by Brazil regarding a US notification (G/TBT/Notif.00/5)
on dolphin-safe tuna labelling.  She conceded that the notification should not have been made under
Article 2.9, as the requirements were not mandatory.  She said that the US had legislation, the
International Dolphin Conservation Program Act and the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information
Act, requiring the Secretary of Commerce to develop an official mark to be used to label tunaproducts on a voluntary basis, but other marks were also permissible.
8. The representative of Thailand welcomed the US response.
9. The representative of Mexico underscored the importance to his country of the information on
tuna labelling.  He was under the impression that, within the US, there were differing positions, only
some of which were compatible with the US obligations under the WTO, and he was unsure whichviews would prevail.  He reserved his delegation's right to come back to this issue when it was
clarified.
10. The representative of Egypt endorsed the original concerns of Thailand and Brazil and
welcomed the clarifications by the US.  She supported Brazil's request at the last meeting directed to
the European Communities (EC) to undertake risk assessments before deciding on a policy of a total
ban of plastic toys.
11. She responded to the concern raised by the EC at the previous meeting in regard to Egyptian
Standard no. 2525/1993 for leather footwear issued by the Egyptian authority for standardization.  She
explained that these standards were voluntary.  The Minister of Economy and Foreign Trade had
issued the decree no. 343/1999 on 15 July 1999, which had been officially published in the Egyptian
Gazette on 17 July 1999, regarding the Egyptian general authority for imports and exports control to
examine leather footwear and its requirements.  Upon the issuance of this Decree, and the Decree ofthe Minister of Industry no. 180/1996, imported leathe r footwear was subject to examination by the
said competent authority, either in accordan ce with the Egyptian voluntary standards, any
international standard referred to in this Decree or, to make it easier for importers, the examination of
the imported product could be performed through a verification of its quality as compared to itsG/TBT/M/19
Page 3
factory specifications, a copy of which was usually attached to the cargo.  She highlighted that the
problems raised resulted from non-compliance of the exported product with the necessary
specifications.
12. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the statement by Egypt.  He said
that, regarding plastic toys, he had nothing to add to what had been said at the last meeting, but might
come back to it in the future.
13. The representative of Canada referred to earlier comments made by his delegation with regard
to the EC draft Directives on waste from electrical and electronic equipment and nickel-cadmium
batteries.  He reiterated concerns that these Directives might be developed in ways contrary to the
Agreement.
14. He referred to a legislation being developed in New Zealand concerning the conservation and
protection of trout as a non-commercial species and concerning certain aspects of sport-fishing.  He
informed the Committee that Canada had made several representations to New Zealand objecting to
the ban on the importation of trout and raising questions related to the objective of the ban.  He had
the understanding that the import ban was deemed necessary by New Zealand to ensure the
conservation of trout stocks.  However, no information had been provided to support the ban on
conservation or any other grounds.  His delegation considered the ban to be inconsistent with NewZealand's WTO obligations and in particular, the TBT Agreement.  He requested New Zealand for
clarification and to comply with its international trade obligations by rescinding the ban and by taking
no further steps to make the ban permanent.
15. He recalled that at the last meeting, his delegation had made statements on the labelling of
genetically modified foods.  He provided the Committee with a communication on Canadian efforts todevelop a voluntary standard for the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology which he believed
could assist other Members in their work (G/TBT/W/134).
16. The representative of New Zealand noted Canada's queries regarding New Zealand's
temporary import prohibition on trout.  He said that  a temporary prohibition had been put in place to
allow sufficient time for full consideration of the conservation of New Zealand’s trout fishery.  Therewas currently no commercial sale and hence no domestic market for trout in New Zealand.  A
particular fear had been expressed that the commercial sale might lead to serious conservation
difficulties threatening the sustainability of the wild trout fishery.  He explained that New Zealand’s
recently elected Government had made an undertaking to work through the range of complex issues
associated with the conservation of the trout fishery.  He hoped that the issue could be resolved in the
coming months, and his delegation would come back to the issue in due course.
17. The representative of the European Communities said that the EC was aware of Canada's
concerns regarding waste from electronic and electrical equipment and the batteries initiative.
However, the draft legislation was still under development and both initiatives were at a relatively
early stage without any formal proposals having been made.
18. The representative of Australia endorsed the comments made by Canada on the EC draft
directives and welcomed the statement by the EC.  She expressed concerns about the possible trade
impacts and a lack of scientific justification for bans on certain metals contained in the proposals.
Australia, bilaterally, had made representations about this and would do so again in the future.
19. The representative of Japan associated his delegation with the comments made by Australia.
In principle, his delegation agreed with the objective of minimizing inadequate disposal of electronic
equipments.  However, he was concerned about the way the EC planned to deal with the ban ofcertain substances.  Such a ban ought to take into account detailed and product-specific analysis of the
technological feasibility to abide by it.  If this  was not done, measures might be imposed that wereG/TBT/M/19
Page 4
more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective, which would be inconsistent with
Article 2.2 of the Agreement.  He noted that the Japanese electrical and electronic industry was a
major supplier of these products, and requested the EC to secure adequate opportunity for major
producers, including the Japanese manufacturers, to be consulted on the technological feasibility of
the ban of certain substances.  His authorities wo uld continue to monitor the developments closely.
20. The representative of Thailand shared the concerns expressed and requested that the
Committee be informed by the EC on further developments on the draft Directives.
21. The representative of the United States associated her delegation with concerns expressed
about the two EC Directives.   These issues had re ceived a lot of attention in the US, and she looked
forward to the notifications once the draft regulations existed so that comments could be made.
22. The representative of New Zealand drew the attention of the Committee to a notification by
Japan (G/TBT/Notif.99/668 of 23 December 1999 on Standards for Labelling on Quality of Processed
Foods, Fresh Foods, Husked (Brown) rice and Milled Rice and Marine Products).  The notification
described a country of origin labelling scheme to be applied to all foods and beverages for sale.  The
objective and rationale for this scheme was listed as ‘protection of consumers’ interest’.  It was
apparent from the notification and relevant documentation that the focus of the scheme was to create
mandatory product labelling on the basis of ‘quality’ factors.  Under this scheme, the country of originappeared to be considered an intrinsic determinant of product quality for fresh foods.  He was
concerned that the labelling requirements had been proposed and developed in the context of revisions
to the Basic Agriculture Law which aimed to increase demand for domestic agricultural products.
23. He said it was not appropriate for governments to impose mandatory country and place of
origin labelling as a means to determine product quality.  He disputed that there was a scientific ortechnical link between origin and quality.  He noted that a product’s safety already had to be assured
through established health and safety requirements.  Country of origin labelling added nothing to this
assurance except unnecessary costs to producers, distributors, and in the end, consumers.  New
Zealand opposed, in principle, mandatory country of origin labelling.  Such labelling should remain
voluntary, allowing distributors and producers the right of use when considered justified, including inresponse to consumer wishes for information.
24. He informed the Committee that prior to the submission of G/TBT/Notif.99/668, his
authorities had raised this issue with the Office of the Trade and Investment Ombudsman in Japan in
September 1999, and subsequently with Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.  A
response had been received in December 1999.  He welcomed the commitment contained in this
response that “Japan would not intend to give any advantages to domestic products only and not to
provide discriminatory treatment against imported products”.  However, in his view, other aspects ofthe response did not address New Zealand's concerns.
25. He put further questions to Japan, with reference to the provisions of the Agreement:  (i) The
mandatory country of origin labelling requirements would impose costs on exporters, importers and
those handling imported product in the distribution chain in Japan.  These would include the costs of
the label itself, the need for segregation of products originating in different countries, additionalrecord-keeping, and a verification regime.  The scheme aimed to provide consumers with information
concerning quality.  However, there was no scientific or proven link between origin and quality.  How
could the additional costs arising from the scheme be justified, when the scheme did not meet its
stated objective?  Given that the scheme could not meet its stated objective, how would the additional
costs not create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade with reference to Article 2.2?  Whatalternative measures of a less trade restrictive nature (for example voluntary labelling schemes) had
been considered, and why had they not been adopted?  (ii) The necessity of the imposition of country
of origin labelling to meet the stated objective of ‘consumer interest’ was questionable and the
measure a disproportionate response to the risks which would arise if the objective were not attained.G/TBT/M/19
Page 5
Given that quality assurance was already provided by the health and safety tests that products had to
meet in order to be placed on the Japanese market, what were the risks of non-fulfilment of the
objective of providing consumers with information through the country of origin labelling scheme?
What available scientific and technical information had been used by Japan to determine these risks of
non-fulfilment?  He requested Japan to provide an update on the implementation of the scheme.
26. The representative of Japan explained that the origin labelling requirement was imposed upon
all processed foods, both imported or domestically produced, and was therefore not designed to
provide for any advantage to domestic produce no r for discriminatory treatment against imported
produce.  It was designed to protect consumers' interests so that consumers' wishes for information in
selecting commodities were fulfilled.  He explained that consumers chose agricultural produce
depending on the various efforts undertaken to improve price and quality of produce from various
origins.  In this sense, consumers had requested that the place of origin be labelled as an indication torely on in their purchasing decisions. He explained that the Japanese custom regulation had required
exporters or importers to declare the origin of commodities in their customs clearance and that not
much further cost was added by the new labelling system.  He reconfirmed that his government had
given explanations to New Zealand in response to its appeal to the office of the trade and investment
ombudsman in Japan and in response to its comments on the Japanese notification of the measure tothe TBT Committee and that it was ready to continue  to explain the objective of and lessen the
concerns about the additional costs for complying with the labelling requirement.
27. The representative of Australia associated her delegation with the comments made by
New Zealand.
28. The Committee took note of the statements made.
IV. WORKSHOP ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SPECIAL AND
DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
29. The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting (G/TBT/M/18), the Committee had agreed to
hold a Workshop on Technical Assistance and Special and Differential Treatment with a primary
focus on technical assistance in July 2000 back to back with the Committee meeting
(G/TBT/SPEC/14).  The purpose of the Workshop was to provide the opportunity for Members that
require technical assistance to inform the Committee and relevant organizations of any difficulties
they encountered in the implementation and operation of the Agreement, and of the kind of technical
assistance they might need.  At the same time, Members and international organizations providing
technical assistance in the TBT area could make use of this occasion to communicate to theCommittee any information concerning their technical assistance programmes.  The goal was to help
better target technical assistance, avoid duplication and promote further cooperation and coordination
among donor Members and organizations, aiming at developing efficient and effective technical
assistance programmes in the various areas related to the TBT Agreement.
30. A questionnaire had been sent out on 13 March (G/TBT/W/127), inviting Members, in
particular developing country Members, to identify any difficulties they encountered in the
implementation and operation of the Agreement, as well as the kind of technical assistance they mightneed.  Replies had been received from a number of delegations.  Taking into account the replies
received, discussions held at previous meetings, workshops and symposia, a draft programme of the
Workshop had been prepared by the Secretariat (G/TBT/SPEC/15) and had been circulated to
Members on 20 April, inviting comments before 5 May.  Based on the comments made by a number
of delegations, the Secretariat had made minor structural changes to the programme.  He explainedthat the first day would focus on fact finding to gather information from developing country Members
on problems and needs in the following four area s:  (i) Implementation and Administration of the
Agreement;  (ii) International Standards;  (iii) Conformity Assessment Procedures;  and (iv) Capacity
Building.  On the second day, during round table discussions, the focus would be on solution seekingG/TBT/M/19
Page 6
to deal with the problems and needs expressed on the first day.  The idea would be to have the results
of the Workshop reported back to the Committee for its information.  Members would be invited to
propose and consider further actions which might be included in the Second Triennial Review of the
Agreement at the end of 2000.
31. He recalled that at the last meeting, the Chairman had appealed for assistance from
delegations in order to have better participation of developing country Members and to finance
speakers from these Members.  He expressed gratitude to the European Communities, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Japan for their generous contributions to finance speakers from
developing country Members.  He invited delegations to actively participate at the Workshop.
32. The representative of Egypt thanked the donor countries.  She felt that developing countries
should be able to benefit from technical assistance  within the framework of the Agreement, especially
in the fields of making use of electronic means fo r information exchange, participating in international
standards preparation, establishing conformity  assessment systems according to international
requirements, setting up mechanisms of technical regulation development and sound relating
infrastructure as well as activating enquiry points, et c.  She appreciated the fact that most speakers in
the Workshop would be from developing countries.  She expressed her hope for a successful
Workshop and assured Egypt's full contribution.  She also expressed interest to further explore withthe World Bank the means of future cooperation as regards their project for the year 1999-2002.
33. The representative of India associated his delegation with the gratitude expressed by Egypt.
He informed the Committee that India was working actively on the following aspects to ensure the
usefulness of the Workshop:  (i) Identifying problems faced by India in full implementation of the
Agreement;  (ii) examining problems faced by Indi a in participating and formulating international
standards with regard to the Agreement.  He pointed to the difference between having the opportunity
to participate, which, he suspected, India had, and having the capacity, i.e. the possibility to contribute
meaningfully to the development of these standards;  and (iii) identifying in the light of those findings
the kind of assistance India wanted.  He said a series of meetings had been held, e.g. between the
APEC chambers of commerce and related ministries and agencies of his government, and he expected
a country paper to result from these endeavours.  This and also the nomination of a speaker from India
demonstrated that his country took the Workshop serious and tried to contribute actively to its
success.
34. The representative of South Africa confirmed his delegation's support for the Workshop.  He
believed in the value of sharing experiences and learning from each other, thereby gravitating towards
better practices.  South Africa would share recent experiences in the harmonization of technical
regulations within its region as well as the concomitant capacity building exercises.
35. The representative of Canada expressed his hope for a productive outcome of the Workshop.
He highlighted the importance of the following two factors:  (i) Candour and focus on practical
problems and solutions;  and (ii) the participation of as many capital-based experts as possible.  He
suggested to allocate more time for presentations an d discussions in view of the complexity of the
individual subjects.
36. The representative of the United States welcomed the programme and highlighted the
opportunity for Members to bring their needs to the table and for her delegation to take stock of its
assistance provided to help further the implemen tation of the Agreement.  She suggested that the
organizations participating in the Integrated Framework for LDCs be invited, and that the Secretariat
be asked to give a presentation on the operation of that Framework.
37. The representative of Mauritius associated himself with the previous speakers and hoped for a
wide participation at the Workshop.  He thanked donors for their contributions providing the
possibility of enlarging the number of participants.G/TBT/M/19
Page 7
38. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the programme of the Workshop
and stressed, as did Canada, the importance to address practical problems and solutions.  He felt that
emphasis should also be placed on enhancing cooperation between the donors, and therefore, their
participation in the programme ought to be ensured.  The mere provision of resources by donors was
not enough, it was necessary for them to get continuous feed-back to modify assistance programmesas appropriate.  He encouraged the Committee to envisage establishing an overall framework for
technical assistance as suggested in the EC paper (G/TBT/W/133).
39. The representative of Panama thanked for the preparation of the Workshop and highlighted its
importance for the implementation of the Agreement.  She announced that, with the support of the
World Bank, a WTO-related regional seminar would be held on 27-29 June 2000 in Panama with the
participation of Central American countries.  It was organized to prepare these countries to present a
joint position on their needs as regards the implem entation of the Agreement.  This showed the
importance given by Central America to the proble m of standards and conformity assessment, and
their interest to participate actively in the Workshop.
40. The representative of Japan welcomed the draft programme of the Workshop, and reassured
his delegation's effort to make it a success.
41. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of ASEAN member countries of the
WTO, welcomed the organization of the Workshop.  He agreed that more time was needed for
discussions and suggested to decrease the number of speakers.  He thanked the donors for their
contributions and asked whether any balance could be  used to finance participants from developing
countries to ensure meaningful discussions with capital based experts.
42. The representative of Mauritius endorsed the statement made by Malaysia.
43. The representative of Pakistan welcomed the Workshop and the contributions by donor
countries.  His delegation was looking forward to a meaningful participation in the Workshop which
would provide the opportunity to share experiences in the implementation of the Agreement.  He
hoped that the outcome of the Workshop would find its way into the Second Triennial Review.  He
supported the view of Malaysia, highlighting the importance of effective participation from the floorfor those countries who might not be able to present comprehensive country papers.
44. The representative of Australia endorsed the statement made by Malaysia.
45. The Chairman reassured delegations that all comments would be taken into account, and
highlighted the delicate balancing act involved in  ensuring coverage from different regions while
keeping the number of speakers at manageable numbers.  He suggested to extend the timeframe for
discussions by starting the Workshop earlier and finishing later.
46. The representative of Egypt shared the Malaysian view, but supported the Chairman's
proposal to extend the hours of the Workshop in order to have as many speakers as possible.
47. The representative of India endorsed the Chairman's proposal to extend the time for the
Workshop.  He stressed that it was key for the success of the Workshop to have as many experts
knowing about the practical problems from deve loping country capitals as possible, whether as
speakers or participants.  These would not be diplomats and civil servants from the ministry ofcommerce, but experts from, e.g. standards organizations, who participated in international standard-
setting activities.  This did not exclude the former group who could attend the Workshop as a learning
experience if funds were available to them.  However, unlike last year's Symposium on Conformity
Assessment which had been held to educate Members, this Workshop was to find out about the actual
problems.  He concluded that the number of speakers and participants was perhaps less significantthan the need to ensure the participation of the right kind of people.G/TBT/M/19
Page 8
48. The representative of Brazil welcomed the Workshop and suggested to have a list of speakers
beforehand for information and to encourage further participation of experts from capitals.
49. The Chairman summarized that there was a general recognition that the workshop would be
an useful opportunity for discussions on the practical challenges that Members faced in relation to the
Agreement and that it should be solutions-focused.  He noted that the Secretariat, in response to theUS suggestion, would give a presentation on TBT-related activities associated with the Integrated
Framework, and that relevant agencies involved in  the Integrated Framework should be able to attend
the Workshop.  With regard to financial assistance for the attendance of developing country
participants, he suggested that Members made known to the Secretariat their needs for the
participation of particular appropriate individuals.  This would provide a basis for the Secretariat to
examine possibilities in this regard with donors.  He recalled that there had been informal approaches
by Members ( e.g. Norway) to the Secretariat indicating the possibility of additional funding.
50. The representative of Malaysia did not object to the participation of agencies involved in the
Integrated Framework at the Workshop, but emphasized that this was without prejudice to his
delegation's position on how the Integrated Framew ork was relevant to capacity-building and the
provision of technical assistance to developing countries.
51. The Committee took note of the statements made.
V. PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE OPERATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.4
52. The Chairman recalled that the Committee was mandated to conduct the Second Triennial
Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement before the end of the year.  At the last
meeting, the Committee had an indicative list of items that the Second Triennial Review was expectedto address.  It was noted that at this stage, it was necessary to be flexible in the Committee, and
sufficient opportunity should be provided for consultation on any issues that delegations might like to
raise in relation to the operation and implementation of the Agreement.  He invited those delegations
who wished to submit further papers or proposals for the Review to do so as soon as possible, so that
enough time be provided for discussions.  He drew attention to documents G/TBT/SPEC/11 and
Add.1. which compiled relevant submissions by Members, as well as the latest proposals from the
European Communities contained in G/TBT/W/133.
53. He recalled that, at the last meeting, the Committee had held discussions on the following
issues:  (i) Implementation of the Agreement;  (ii) notifications and procedures for information
exchange;  (iii) international standards and inte rnational standardizing bodies;  (iv) conformity
assessment procedures;  (v) regulatory best practice;  (vi) technical assistance;  (vii) special and
differential treatment;  (viii) equivalency of standards;  (ix) labelling;  and (x) any other elements thatMembers wanted to propose.  In relation to the item on international standards and international
standardizing bodies, he recalled that at the last meeting the Secretariat had been asked to prepare
two notes under its own responsibility to facilitate discussions.  The first note was a factual side by
side note comparing the three proposals made by the US, EC and Japan, concerning the principles for
international standardizing bodies and international standards (document Job 2321).  The second noteaimed at identifying common elements of the three proposals which could also serve as a basis for
further agreement in the future (document Job 2322).  This had been prepared on the basis both of
submissions made by delegations as well as discussions in the Committee.  He drew attention to a
third paper reissued by the Secretariat, entitled "A Factual Comparison between the Annex 3 of the
WTO/TBT Agreement and the ISO/IEC Guide 59, a Code of Good Practice for Standardization"(G/TBT/W/132).
54. The representative of Mauritius believed that  the items identified for the Second Triennial
Review fell into three categories.  The first category, which included items (i) and (ii), dealt withG/TBT/M/19
Page 9
implementation and notifications, where developing countries faced particular difficulties.
Notifications could constitute an "Achilles heel" for developing countries, not only from the view
point of implementation but also assimilation of the Agreement.  He proposed an approach similar to
the SPS monthly summary of notifications for the TBT Committee.  He believed that these
summaries, by recapitulating the notifications of the month, would provide useful information on theoriginating countries, countries affected, the products concerned and other details.
55. The second category, containing elements (iii), (iv), (v), (viii) and (ix), comprised highly
technical issues.  He recalled a suggestion by South Africa during the informal meeting that the
regional dimension deserved attention in these regards.  The third category, which included items
(vi) and (vii), was of particular importance to countries such as Mauritius.  His delegation was looking
forward to the Workshop as being a building bloc to give more concrete shape to what could be done
in terms of technical assistance and special and differential treatment.
56. The representative of Malaysia stated that the elements identified by the Chairman for the
Second Triennial Review seemed acceptable to his delegation, without prejudice to other elements
that could be introduced.  However, he raised concerns about item (ix), labelling, and invited the EC
to further elaborate on their proposal regarding the development of multilateral guidelines for
labelling and to explain why there was a need for this (paragraph 27, G/TBT/W/133).  He wonderedwhether he was correct in that the EC placed too much focus on consumer information.  He recalled
that at the First Triennial Review, Canada had had concerns on labelling, and invited Canada to
elaborate on this topic. At present, his delegation's position was that the existing provisions of the
TBT Agreement were sufficient to take care of labelling requirements, and it remained unconvinced
that there was a need to amend or expand the scope of the Agreement.
57. Concerning the Japanese proposal on intern ational standardizing bodies he welcomed the
Japanese non-paper on market relevancy, but stated that he still had some conceptual problems, that
were shared by other Members.  He wondered how  certain international standards, as opposed to
others, were to be given preference in the context of the TBT Agreement, and requested clarification
from Japan.
58. The representative of Egypt agreed on the necessity of having a clear and specific definition
of international standards and international standardizing bodies, and that basic rules should be
defined on how international standards were to be prepared.  She noted that not all WTO Members
were members in all international standardizing bodies, thus they might not be allowed to participate
fully in the development of all standards.
59. She drew attention to the US proposal contained in document G/TBT/W/75 and Rev.1, and
suggested that the following comments be taken into  consideration:  (i) The US proposal was not to
take the form of a decision where an obligatory language was used;  and (ii) paragraph 1(c) of the
proposal concerning electronic means ought to be replaced by the following:  "upon request, copies of
the proposed reference document should be promptly provided to its members", as most developing
countries lacked and could not afford the use of electronic means.
60. Regarding the Japanese proposal contained in Document G/TBT/W/121, she believed that the
proposal related to members of international standardizing bodies rather than WTO Members.  In
referring to page 3 of the document, she suggested the deletion of paragraph 1(e), it being irrelevant
due to the wide technological gap between developing and developed countries.  She also proposed to
delete paragraph 2, as it was difficult to define a specific figure of the market share of like products,
especially in the case where a developing country had a substantial market presence for a productbeing standardized.  She further suggested that a paragraph on the importance of publishing work
programmes of international standardizing bodies be included in the Japanese proposal.G/TBT/M/19
Page 10
61. The representative of Chile welcomed the two papers on international standards (Job 2321
and 2322), which would help advance discussions.  He suggested that document Job 2322 should be
revised by the Secretariat in light of the comments made at the formal and informal meetings.  He
thanked Japan for its efforts to develop an obje ctive approach to determine market relevance.
However, he highlighted the importance of the principles of transparency, openness and impartiality,which should lead to market relevancy.  The latter ought not to be something imposed from above.
62. The representative of India, in referring to paper Job 2321, stated that developing countries
appeared to be standard-takers rather than standard-setters.  Moreover, none of the three proposals
dealt with the role of developing countries in the development of international standards.  One way of
remedying this would be to see whether concrete ideas emerged from the Workshop which could be
useful for amending the proposals.
63. Turning to Job 2322, he made the following co mments:  (i) In paragraph 4, the OECD was
mentioned, although he felt it was not an international standardizing body in the sense of Codex, ISO
and IEC;  (ii) he expressed concerns with regard to a trend towards international standards that, albeit
voluntary, were based on non product  related PPMs;  (iii)  in paragraph 5, relating to the opportunity
to participate in international standardizing bodies, he  pointed out that countries, such as India, did not
necessarily have the capacity, even if they had the opportunity;  (iv) he believed that a number ofinternational standardizing bodies did not take decisions based on consensus, but by vote, which
appeared to be incompatible with WTO procedures and the spirit of the TBT Agreement;
(v) concerning guidelines for international standards development and the related principles, such as
transparency, openness and impartiality, he invited the Committee to consider the possibility of
including the development dimension as another aspect;  (vi) he raised concerns about thedevelopment of consortia standards which might be more attuned to multi-national corporations and
not suitable for countries such as India, whose large number of small and medium scale enterprises
might find it difficult to cope with such standards;  and (vii) he invited the Committee to consider
whether the level of technological and scientific capacity of Members, including developing country
Members, could be an aspect of market relevancy other than just trade volume.
64. The representative of Australia announced to provide written comments on papers Job 2321
and 2322.
65. The Chairman declared it was the Secretariat's intention to have a revision by the middle or
end of June so that sufficient time was provided to Members for consideration in capitals before the
July meeting.  Comments should therefore be made as quickly as possible.
66. The representative of the European Communities also announced the provision of written
comments on the two papers.  He reiterated the EC's  concern about the status of standardizing bodies.
He felt it was important to make a distinction between the national, regional and international levels
of standardization.  Responding to the comments made by India, he noted that in both Job 2321 and
2322 there was a reference to take the constraints faced by developing countries into consideration in
the standards development process.  He agreed to further address this issue at the Workshop.
67. The representative of Japan clarified that his delegation did not advocate that the Committee
set "an X per cent" criterion to examine all "international standards" in order to decide on the ones
that were market relevant.  It was not Japan's intention to neglect "international standards" for
products with a relatively small consumption in general.  For certain products various market realities
were relevant.  He added that Japan did not intend to impose new obligations on Members, nor to
build an additional organizational system to make arbitrations among conflicting standards.
68. He reiterated the importance of transparency, openness and impartiality in the process of
international standards development, and explained that these principles were indispensable for a
certain "standard" to be considered "international" under the Agreement and to be bestowed with theG/TBT/M/19
Page 11
privilege, i.e. the specific legal status under the respective provisions of the Agreement (Articles 2.4,
2.5, 4.1, 4.2 and 14.4, and paragraph F of the Code of Good Practice - Annex 3 of the Agreement).
The procedural criteria set out ( i.e. transparency, openness and impartiality) should, however, not lead
to the conclusion that certain standards developed in accordance with such principles or certain
international standardizing bodies could enjoy an unquestionable status, although in most cases those"international standards" were appropriate to be used in the TBT context.  A "safeguard" was needed
which ought to be based on the objective of the Agreement to reduce technical trade barriers.  Such an
evaluation would look at the global market of cert ain products.  That was the basis of the Japanese
concept of market relevancy which was to be applied to "developed" or "established" international
standards.
69. He further explained that a decision on whether a certain international standard was market
relevant might be taken in the process of dispute settlements.  It would be conducted on a case-by-case basis through detailed debates.  However, he believed that the Committee could discuss generic
elements to be considered in the process, so that  the predictability of dispute settlement could be
increased.  This could also serve as a message to international standardizing bodies, indicating what
WTO Members considered to be important characteristics for international standards to be used in the
TBT context.
70. The representative of the United States reiterated the importance of the element of consensus
as contained in document G/TBT/W/75/Rev.1.  It stipulated the need for international standardizing
bodies to have an established process that sought to take into account the views of all parties
concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.  She did not believe that there was
disagreement among Members on that aspect.
71. She noted that footnotes of paper Job 2322 contained information which reflected divergent
views.  She requested that the document be developed into one containing common elements and
shared perceptions, and believed that it would be  useful to move discussions forward at the
July meeting.  She welcomed the comments made on the paper, among them the ones of India noting
a lack of specific language for developing countries.  She said that while this might be true, havingprocedures, e.g. for consensus and opportunity for all interested views to be reconciled, would benefit
developing countries without explicitly saying so.  To go beyond the principles of transparency,
openness and impartiality, the Committee would need more detailed information on the problems and
needs of developing countries, and could benefit from the discussions at the Workshop on Technical
Assistance, in order to address the concerns of developing countries in any future document.
72. The representative of Pakistan asserted that the biggest problem for developing countries in
the field of international standards was their effective participation, and hoped for solutions at the
July Workshop.  He noted that the proposals on international standards, except for the one by the EC,
generally ignored the developmental dimension, whic h, as India had stated, ought to be incorporated
in document Job 2322.  It was an evolving document prepared by the Secretariat and would contain
more elements as they would arise.  He suggested to change the title of section E of the document into
"Development Dimension".  Hereby an opportunity would be provided for developing countries to
further enlarge the scope of discussions.  More specifically, he commented that the language of
paragraph 15 ("in particular when the developing countries have a substantial market presence for a
product being standardized") was too narrow and precluded important aspects:  At a given time,
developing countries might not be able to export a certain good, but might be able to do so in the
future.  This should be reflected through a broader formulation.
73. He referred to an earlier observation by Egypt regarding paragraph 9, dealing with electronic
means, and said that this was a valid point which related to the Workshop in July.  He reminded the
Committee that the issue of international standards and international standardizing bodies was also
part of paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Seattle Ministerial text, for which an implementation mechanism
had just been put in place.  For this reason, the work of the implementation mechanism was related toG/TBT/M/19
Page 12
the TBT Committee's work.  He invited the Committee to bear this in mind in its future discussions
when carrying out the Second Triennial Review.
74. The Chairman recalled with regard to paragr aph 15 that during the informal meeting, there
had been a general recognition that the text "in particular when the developing countries have a
substantial market presence for a product being standardized" should be deleted.
75. The representative of Mexico highlighted that in paragraph 10 of Job 2322, dealing with the
openness of an international standardizing body, it was stated that the membership should be open to
the relevant bodies of all WTO Members, which, he explained, ought to mean "at least" all
WTO Members.  He was wondering about the nature of these bodies, whether this refered to
governments, trade policy authorities or regional bodies.  In Mexico, international bodies were
recognized, but this had to be done in terms of international law.
76. The representative of India highlighted three issues:  (i) The results of the workshop ought to
be incorporated in the Second Triennial Review;  (ii) he inquired whether a stock-taking exercise was
possible on the implementation of the results of the First Triennial Review.  India would be interested
in such an exercise;  and (iii) he requested the Committee to take into account the inputs received
during the First Triennial Review.  India, for instance, had submitted a paper on the implementation of
Articles 11 and 12 of the Agreement (G/TBT/W/51).  Some of these inputs might still be useful for
this Review.
77. The representative of Egypt, referring to the Australian papers (G/TBT/W/118 and Job 956),
expressed doubts about the possibility of setting a Code of Good Practice in the area of conformity
assessment for the acceptance by accreditation bodies.  In Egypt, the national accreditation body was
in its final phases of establishment, and had not yet practiced de facto accreditation.  She believed thisto be also the case in some other developing countries, where concluding MRAs was not possible due
to the lack of such bodies.  She noted that supplier's declaration of conformity was often not feasible
in developing countries due to the lack of a legal framework.  It was difficult to determine liability in
cases of non-conformity, in particular in view of the absence of a unified definition of suppliers.  With
respect to the Japanese paper (G/TBT/W/121), she was not of the opinion that the Triennial Reviewshould necessarily entail a re-opening of and amendments to the text of the Agreement, although she
believed that the Japanese proposal merited further consideration.  She reserved her delegation's rights
to come back with further remarks on the papers received.
78.  The representative of the European Communities introduced the EC paper (G/TBT/W/133)
which provided a list of issues to be addressed in the Second Triennial Review.  On the first issue,
"Implementation", he expressed concerns about the fact that the Agreement was still not fully
implemented by some Members, and suggested that the Review should explore the reasons for thisand address the findings in a practical way.  He linked this issue to the work being done on technical
assistance and capacity-building, and noted that there would be relevant discussions in the General
Council in June.
79. Concerning notifications, he found that the notification system was not working as well as it
could.  He proposed that appropriate solutions be sought to increase the number of notifications aswell as the number of notifying countries.  Members should be encouraged to observe the rules on
notification procedures.  Discussions should be he ld on improvements in notification procedures.  He
invited the Committee to consider conducting periodic reviews to assess how well notification
procedures worked.
80. He expressed his belief that conformity assessment should be an important element of the
Review, as it was an area which featured significant technical trade barriers.  He drew attention to the
suggestions made in document G/TBT/W/133.  He believed that a number of ISO/IEC standards and
guides on conformity assessment could be useful to give guidance on how to deal with conformityG/TBT/M/19
Page 13
assessment issues.  The Committee should look at the feasibility of promoting multilateral or regional
cooperation on accreditation, an issue that had been discussed at the Symposium on Conformity
Assessment held last year.  He said a close look ought to be taken at the various options on
conformity assessment procedures and the ones adopted should not be more onerous than necessary.
Supplier's declaration of conformity, which was one of the options, had to be put in context with theframework needed, such as market surveillance and product liability, and could not be the solution for
all situations nor every type of product.  Technical assistance was an important aspect in this area.  He
noted that a code of good practice had been propose d, and it was his delegation's intention to explore
and make progress on those issues within the Review.
81. Concerning "Regulatory Best Practice", he suggested renaming the item "regulatory best
practice for technical regulations" to make the scope of the EC proposal more precise.  He believed
that there were merits in exchanging information on this in order to learn about practices in differentregions and of different Members.  His delegation had the intention to explain the system used in the
European Union.
82. With respect to "Labelling", he referred to th e discussions held at this meeting on jewellery,
tuna and processed foods, etc. which all involved labelling, and noted that similar discussions
involving labelling took place in every meeting.  Put simplistically, it seemed to him that the
Agreement was not providing enough information on labelling, although it clearly fell under its scope.
He explained that the EC paper intended to highlight the necessity to discuss this subject, and further
information on this proposal was under preparation.
83. The representative of Malaysia stated that his delegation was willing to listen to what would
be said on the issue of labelling, but remained  unconvinced.  He suspected the EC proposal fell
outside the scope of the Agreement.  With regard to conformity assessment, he shared the EC's
concerns, but expressed doubts as to whether a code of good practice was the best way forward.  He
noted that even the existing Code (Annex 3 of the Agreement) had not been adopted by standardizing
bodies of some Members, and wondered about the fate of an additional code.  He was aware of some
MRAs that contravened WTO principles of MF and hinted that there might be a need for an"umbrella" or legal framework under which conformity assessment mechanisms could be established.
However, such an "umbrella" could mean expanding the scope of the Agreement and he was not sure
whether this could be a solution either.  Concerning supplier's declaration of conformity, which was
an attractive option, he conceded, however, that, at present, many developing countries were unable to
adopt this approach due to a lack of infrastructure.  He believed this was an important area to be dealt
with in the Second Triennial Review.  He supported the idea of assessing the outcomes of the First
Triennial Review.
84. The Chairman held that it would be useful to look into all the documents arising from the
First Triennial Review, and referred to the Secretariat's compilation document (G/TBT/SPEC/11 and
Add.1) which could be a tool in this respect.  At the First Review, the Committee had considered
certain issues that were still being discussed in the context of this Review.  He invited Members to
keep in mind what the Committee had undertaken, and to identify aspects still requiring further work.
85. The representative of Australia expressed her belief that the discussions on conformity
assessment would lead to a more effective implemen tation of the Agreement.  She drew attention to
the two Australian papers (G/TBT/W/118 and Job 956) and the one non-paper on conformity
assessment procedures, which each built on each other, taking into account comments made by
Members.  The current non-paper should be seen as superseding the other two documents.  Theobjective of the Australian proposals was to give Members guidance in implementing the various
regimes in accordance with the TBT principles and were not meant to impose further obligations on
Members.  Australia had identified the following types of conformity assessment regimes:
(i) cooperative (voluntary) arrangements between domestic and foreign conformity assessment
bodies;  (ii) market driven certification through voluntary inter-laboratory agreements;  (iii) mutualG/TBT/M/19
Page 14
recognition agreements for conformity assessment to specific regulations;  (iv) government
designation;  (v) manufacturer's/supplier's declarations;  and (vi) accreditation of bodies carrying out
various types of conformity assessment.  The proposal envisaged that the regimes identified would be
codified.  However, she suggested that the referen ce to a code could be put aside until the Committee
decided on the direction the proposal should take.
86. She invited Members to identify other conformity assessment regimes, if considered relevant.
She noted that in each of the regimes identified there was potential for improper application.  She
reiterated that whichever regime was used it must meet the essential WTO principles of transparency,
non-discrimination and take into consideration national and most favoured nation treatment.
Collusive practices based on personal relationships would fall foul of the Agreement.  If rules for the
regimes were published and service providers were aware of them, one could argue that they would
meet the requirements of the Agreement.  She invited comments from other Members.
87. The representative of Japan highlighted the importance of conformity assessment for the
Second Triennial Review, and noted that in this field, there were documents issued by international
standardizing bodies as well as by international systems for conformity assessment.  Under the
Agreement, there were rules regarding the former, but it was not clear how the latter documents
should be treated.  Therefore, Japan had made a proposal on this issue and he invited Members todiscuss the substance first and modalities of how to deal with the proposal at a later stage.
Commenting on the Australian proposal, he believed that accreditation was one option for ensuring
effectiveness of conformity assessment.  Other options, such as peer assessment among conformity
assessment bodies, should be considered on an equal footing.  He welcomed the latest Australian non-
paper to which he would come back for further comments.
88. The representative of the United States shared the views of Malaysia that the existing rules
under the Agreement adequately dealt with issues concerning labelling.  She also agreed with the EC
that a number of issues involving labelling had been brought to this Committee.  However, this might
not necessarily mean that there was a failing of the rules.  She looked forward to additional
information from the EC on this proposal.
89. In response to suggestions on whether a stock-taking from the First Triennial Review should
be done, she said that the Committee had been doing that as part of its ongoing discussions as well as
of the Second Triennial Review.  A number of proposals brought forward for this Review had been
informed by discussions of the last one.  She recalled that there had not been many concrete
recommendations or conclusions reached at the First Review, but it had provided a basis for future
thought.  She hoped that in this Triennial Review, the Committee could reach conclusions on some of
the issues that had been discussed for some tim e, such as international standards and possibly
conformity assessment, where Japan, Australia, the EC and other delegations had raised interesting
concepts.
90. She welcomed the progress on the Australian proposal which demonstrated that efforts had
been undertaken to take into account comments made, e.g. by her delegation, on the original
submission limited to accreditation.  She indicated a more detailed reaction would follow at the nextmeeting.
91. She supported the EC suggestion for a further exchange of information on supplier's
declaration of conformity, believing that building a factual basis of information was important.  She
referred to the her delegation's paper (G/TBT/W/63) illustrating areas where the US relied on
supplier's declaration.  Without prejudice to whether or not other countries adopted it, at the FirstTriennial Review, the US had noted that it was a trade-friendly approach to conformity assessment.
She believed that all these ideas merited further discussions.G/TBT/M/19
Page 15
92. She suggested that in future meetings, a more de tailed agenda should be prepared that enabled
more focused discussions of individual topics.  She requested the Secretariat to prepare a document
listing, by Member, the submissions made under Article 15.2 for information of the Committee.
93. The representative of Japan joined in with the United States and Malaysia in awaiting further
elaboration by the EC on the issue of labelling.
94. The representative of New Zealand expressed her satisfaction with the indicative list of issues
for the Second Triennial Review which contained th e key topics and maintained flexibility as work
progressed.  New Zealand placed particular importance on the issue of equivalency of standards.  She
believed that there was a good opportunity to build on the results of the First Review, taking particular
action to strengthen the implementation of the Agr eement in this area.  Her delegation intended to
submit a paper relating to technical regulations.  She agreed with India about the relationship between
the First and the Second Triennial Review, and stressed the importance of building on the results ofthe First Review, while taking into account the work  that had been done in the Committee since.  In
this regard, she agreed with the Chairman's remarks.  While she was open to a general stock-take of
the implementation of the First Triennial Review, she deemed it more worthwhile to focus specifically
on the proposals made during the First Review which were relevant to the issues set out in the
indicative list of this Review.  As pointed out by the US, the Committee had done this with regard tointernational standards and conformity assessment.  She welcomed the EC paper which outlined the
EC's priorities in the Second Triennial Review, and looked forward to further contributions from
Members, including the EC's proposed paper on labelling.
95. The representative of Uruguay, in referring to  conformity assessment, stated that the various
papers, e.g. from Japan, the EC and Australia, demonstrated the importance of this issue.
Circumstances varied among countries, who therefore needed to have recourse to various mechanisms
for the assessment of conformity.  This was essentia l to market access.  He pointed to the types of
conformity assessment regimes enumerated by Aust ralia to which other mechanisms could be added.
96. The representative of Mexico commented that the items on the indicative list should be dealt
with as long as they were covered under the Agreement.  The Second Triennial Review should be
conducted in accordance with Article 15.4 of the Agreement.  He stated his opposition to expanding
the scope of the Agreement.
97. The representative of Egypt associated herself with the comments made by Mexico in that the
Second Triennial Review should be conducted within the meaning of Article 15.4 and not with the
aim of widening the scope of the Agreement.
98. The representative of Pakistan welcomed the indicative list of items for the Second Triennial
Review, but indicated reservations on some of the items, such as labelling, as expressed by Malaysia.
He associated himself with the intervention by Mexico concerning the scope of the Second Triennial
Review.  He also hoped that the results of the forthcoming Workshop would be incorporated in the
results of the Second Triennial Review.
99. The representative of South Africa supported the indicative list of the Second Triennial
Review and welcomed the submissions by Members.  He recognized that the July Workshop on
Technical Assistance would shed more light on some of the issues.  In particular, sharing information
and experiences could help Members to focus discussions.  South Africa's experiences in conformity
assessment to be shared at the Workshop could help others to recognize the difficulties that most
developing countries face in this area.  He welcomed that the preparation of technical regulations
would form part of the Second Triennial Review, though he felt this to be a sensitive area, as it dealtwith the legal system of Members.  He believed th at it would be beneficial, especially for developing
countries, to gain an understanding on the building blocks that make up an effective and efficientG/TBT/M/19
Page 16
technical regulatory regime.  This might also help Members to consolidate data on national technical
regulations and facilitate the fulfilment of notification requirements under the Agreement.
100. The representative of Australia welcomed the exchange of information on technical
regulations and said that her delegation would like to present its experiences in this area.  She felt the
Second Triennial Review was a good opportunity to improve the operation of the Agreement and toincrease the number of Members fully committed to its implementation. She stated that Australia
preferred a limited albeit not restricted number of issues for consideration.  She hoped for outcomes
from this Review, particularly in areas where there had already been some measure of agreement, for
example international standards and conformity assessment.
101. The Chairman concluded that there was no disagreement that the Committee would conduct
the Second Triennial Review within the context of Article 15.4.  He invited Members to reacquaint
themselves with the First Triennial Review document (G/TBT/5), documents G/TBT/SPEC/11 andAdd.1.  He encouraged Members to become increasingly more concrete in ideas and proposals.  It was
important for the Committee to have an idea of what was brought forward on the table soon after the
summer break so that enough time would be provided for consideration.  With regard to a more
structured agenda in the future, he felt that this depended very much on Members in terms of the
proposals submitted.  He suggested that before the next formal meeting, an informal session would beheld to go through the various items that had been proposed.
102. The Committee took note of the statements made.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
103. The representative of Canada referred to a UN/ECE document (G/TBT/W/129/Rev.1) entitled
"A project for an international model for implem enting good regulatory practice for the preparation,
adoption and application of technical regulations via the use of international standards".  He felt the
project ambitious, in particular in the context of UN/ECE, an institution that had a relative restricted
group of participants.  He expressed concerns about the institutions that might need to be consulted,
both at the national and international levels.  He invited other Members to comment on the paper.
104. The representative of the United States associated herself with comments made by Canada
about the work of the UN/ECE, concerns which ha d also been raised by the US at the previous
meeting.  She encouraged other delegations to consider this issue, as the proposed model might relate
to the work of the TBT Committee and to obligations under the Agreement.  This would pose legal
questions, and even the establishment of a new bureaucratic infrastructure might be implied with
questionable benefits.  She announced that she would come back to this issue in due course.
105. The representatives of New Zealand and Egypt associated themselves with the concerns
expressed by Canada and the US regarding the UN/ECE project.
106. The representative of the UN/ECE welcomed the comments made by WTO Members as
UN/ECE was at the beginning of the project, and said that the comments made would be taken into
consideration.  He stressed that changes in the text (as contained in G/TBT/W/129/Rev.1) had been
made due to the comments made at the last TBT Committee meeting and in other fora.  The document
was an informal document in a draft form, and the concept and substance were still underdevelopment.  He announced that on 7 June 2000 an  informal meeting was organized by UN/ECE for
experts from industry and international organizations to discuss the concept of this model and the
feasibility of its use in particular sectors.  He reassured Members that no new structure nor obligation
was suggested, but a voluntary mechanism for those countries who wished to harmonize their
regulations in accordance with the provisions of the TBT Agreement.G/TBT/M/19
Page 17
107. The representative of Canada proposed that the Committee, at the end of each meeting,
agreed on a relatively detailed agenda for the following session.  Hitherto, agendas had not been
particularly transparent and more details would be useful for the preparation in capitals.  Also, in the
last meeting of each year, the meeting dates for the following year could be scheduled, which would
facilitate the participation of capital-based delegates in the meetings.
108. The Chairman announced that the next Committee meeting would be held in the third week of
July 2000 back to back with the Workshop on Technical Assistance and Special and Differential
Treatment.  The issue of transparency of meeting agendas needed to be kept under consideration, so
that delegates coming to meetings were fully aware of what was going to be discussed.
109. The Committee took note of the statements made.
__________