RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/91  
 
1 Februar y 2024 
(24-0819) Page: 1/128 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 8 -10 NOVEMBER 2023  
CHAIRPERSON: MS. ANNA VITIE  
Note by the Secretariat1  
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT  ................................ . 4 
2.1   Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
2.1.1    Withdrawn concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 
2.1.2    Reported progress  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 
2.1.3    New Specific Trade Concerns  ................................ ................................ ......................  6 
2.1.4    Previously raised concerns  ................................ ................................ ........................ 22 
2.2   Exchange of Experiences  ................................ ................................ ...........................  116 
2.2.1    Transparency  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  116 
2.2.2    Conformity Assessment Procedures (Guidelines)  ................................ ........................  117 
2.2.3    Thematic sessions  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 118 
2.3   Other Matters  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  118 
2.3.1    10th Triennial Review  ................................ ................................ ..............................  118 
2.3.2    Better Functioning of the CTG and its Subsidiary Bodies  ................................ .............  119 
2.3.3    Any Other Matters Related to Implementation and Administration of the Agreement  ...... 120 
3   TECHNICAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ .. 120  
3.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ........................  120 
3.2   Information from Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ......................  120 
4   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  121  
4.1   Updates from Observers  ................................ ................................ ............................  121 
4.2   Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 123 
5   ANNUAL REPORT (2023) TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  ..........................  123  
6   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 124  
6.1   China on MC13 Declaration  ................................ ................................ ........................  124 
6.2   Standards -related work of the WTO Secretariat for the upcoming UN climate  
conference, COP28  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  125 
6.3   Communication From Brazil - Enhancing Food Security through the Reform in  
Agriculture and the use of current flexibilities (JOB/TBT/517)  ................................ ................  127 
7   DATE OF NEXT MEETING ................................ ................................ ..........................  128  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility  and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/27 . 
1.2.  The representative of Ukraine  inform ed the Committee  about Ukraine's activities in 2023 
concerning technical regulations. Despite enduring significant human and economic losses, along 
with the intentional destruction of critical civilian infrastructure due to Russia's war of aggression, 
Ukraine had maintain ed its commitment to adopting national standards aligned with international 
and European requirements. This was in an effort to approve and review technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures, aiming for a holistic approach in standardi sation and metrology, 
and striving to ensure the transparency of their TBT measures.  
1.3.  The representative of the  Russian Federation  request ed a point of order . 
1.4.  The Chairperson  asked for Ukraine to be allowed to finish  its intervention .  
1.5.  The representative of the Russian  Federation  requested the floor to explain its reasons for 
raising a point of order . He noted that the Committee had recently approved the meeting agenda, 
including a n item (Item 2) on the implementation and administration of the agreement, which 
encompasse d STCs, exchange of experiences, and other matters. He cited the annotated agenda 
which stipulated that under Item 2(c) "other matters ", delegations wishing to raise any other matter 
relevant to the implementation and administration of the Agreement  would be invited to do so. 
Russia was of the view that the Ukrainian statements about relevant activities in the field of technical 
regulations should be addressed under Item 2(c) under "Other Business ". He reminded the 
Chairperson of her duty to ensure that discussions adhere to the agreed agenda and the terms of 
reference of the Committee.  He said that Rules of Procedure provided that Chairperson can and 
should interrupt speaker if their remarks are irrele vant for the agenda item and/or terms of reference 
of the Committee.  
1.6.  The Chairperson  thanked the Russian Federation for its input and asked Ukraine to continue its 
intervention .  
1.7.  The representative of Ukraine  emphasized Ukraine's ongoing efforts to adopt a nd harmonize 
national standards with international and European requirements, approve and review technical 
regulations and conformity assessment procedures, and ensure a comprehensive approach in 
standardization and metrology, all while maintaining transpa rency under martial law conditions.   
1.8.  In 2023, Ukraine persevered with the review of national standards, adopting over 
46,000  standards, the majority of which were international standards adopted nationally. They also 
approved numerous technical regulations in line with New and Global Approach Directives and 
worked to preserve and maintain their national measurement standards system. Ukraine included 
numerous Calibration and Measurement Capabilities in the International Bureau of Weights and 
Measu res database. Despite Russia's full -scale invasion, Ukraine became an Associate Member of 
the European Association of National Metrology Institutes (EURAMET)  and terminated its 
involvement with the European C ooperation of national metrological institutions  (COOMET).  
1.9.  Moreover, Ukraine sustained its metrological activities with 76 authorized verification 
laboratories and 165 technical committees for standardization operating across various economic 
sectors, including 12 bodies responsible for conformity asses sment in metrology and 71 accredited 
bodies conducting full conformity assessments in different regions.  
1.10.   The National Accreditation Agency of Ukraine's accreditation is recogni sed as equivalent to 
that of over 80 countries within relevant international and  European organi sations. However, due to 
ongoing military actions by Russian forces, certain regional research cent res in Ukraine could not 
resume their work, while others faced continuous attacks.  
1.11.   Ukraine continued to strive for infrastructure restoration  and harmonization of international 
standards, viewing them as vital for future recovery. Through technical regulation and quality 
infrastructure enhancement, Ukraine sought to promote its goods and services internationally, 
develop export capacity, and en gage in global markets and events.  The representative expressed 
gratitude for international support in technical regulation and quality infrastructure, the removal of G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 3 - 
 
  trade barriers, and business cooperation aimed at recovery and reconstruction. Ukraine be gan 
implementing a comprehensive e -Restoration Programme and the Digital Restoration Ecosystem for 
Accountable Management (DREAM) for transparent construction management.  In the ongoing 
conflict, Ukraine remained committed to informing the WTO about its measures related to technical 
regulations, submitting numerous notifications and responding to member queries on TBT issues.   
1.12.   In conclusion, the representative thanked international partners for their support during these 
challenging times and urged WTO me mbers to take necessary steps to limit Russia's capability to 
wage war, highlighting the extensive destruction and suffering caused by the conflict and its 
detrimental impact on the multilateral trading system.  
1.13.   The representative of the European Union  expressed approval of Ukraine's endeavours to 
integrate into the EU internal market, highlighting Ukraine's close collaboration on standardization 
and adherence to EU technical regulations and quality infrastructure. The EU also commended 
Ukraine for its dedic ation to the World Trade Organization (WTO) duties, as evidenced by its 
continued submission of notifications and responses to inquiries amidst the conflict. The European 
Union strongly condemned Russia's unprovoked and unjustified military actions against  Ukraine and 
the illegal attempted annexation of Ukrainian regions by Russia. They underscored that such actions 
gravely breach international law, compromise global security and stability, and are characterized by 
increasing evidence of war crimes and syst ematic destruction of civilian infrastructure. The EU 
demanded an immediate cessation of Russian hostilities, the withdrawal of its troops, and respect 
for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, affirming steadfast support for Ukraine for the 
duration of this conflict.  
1.14.   The representative of the United States  echoed the European Union in commending Ukraine 
for its unwavering commitment to the work of the WTO. The US reiterated its strong denunciation 
of Russia's brutal and unwarranted aggression to wards Ukraine. The US held Russia solely 
accountable for the immense loss of life and suffering in Ukraine, as well as the escalating threats 
to global food security, which affect developing nations acutely. The US pledged ongoing support for 
Ukraine's val iant efforts to defend its sovereignty, maintain its territorial integrity, and safeguard its 
citizens. The US urged Russia to immediately halt the conflict.  
1.15.   The representative of the United Kingdom  reaffirmed the country's steadfast support for 
Ukraine, a ligning with the sentiments previously expressed by other colleagues. They acknowledged 
the wide -reaching impact of Russia's continued aggression and its illegal invasion, which is felt 
globally and within the multilateral trading system. The UK commended Ukraine's courage and 
resilience in advancing its work related to the Committee under such dire circumstances. The UK, 
along with its allies, pledged to continue highlighting the significant global repercussions of Russia's 
actions for as long as necessary . 
1.16.   The representative of Canada  commended Ukraine's ongoing engagement with the 
Committee's work and its commitment to the multilateral trading system and the rule of law, even 
under hostile conditions. Canada unequivocally condemned Russia's illegal and un justified invasion, 
viewing it as a blatant violation of international law and the rules -based international order. Canada 
assured its unwavering support for Ukraine and its people and vowed to utilize trade mechanisms to 
aid Ukraine in rebuilding its econ omy and society. Canada reiterated its call for Russia to immediately 
halt all hostile activities against Ukraine.  
1.17.   The representative of Australia  thanked Ukraine for the update provided to the Committee 
and recognized the challenges Ukraine faces in meeti ng its WTO obligations amidst the conflict. 
Australia welcomed Ukraine's efforts to adopt standards consistent  with international standards , 
maintain adherence to the TBT Agreement, especially meeting transparency and notification 
obligations, and its continued commitment to international cooperation in metrological and 
accreditation matters. Australia restated its strong condemnation of Russia's invasion, which they 
deemed a gross breach of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, an d 
reaffirmed its support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, urging Russia to stop its 
aggression and withdraw from Ukrainian territory.  
1.18.   The representative of New Zealand  continued to denounce Russia's aggression and stressed 
the importanc e of accountability for the atrocities in Ukraine. They commended Ukraine's proactive 
steps to maintain the functioning of its technical regulation systems despite wartime disruptions. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 4 - 
 
  New Zealand highlighted Russia's significant disruption of global produ ction and trade, particularly 
as a result of its attack on a key food producer and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. They 
underscored the severe negative effects of Russian actions on both Ukraine's and the global 
economy. New Zealand stood in so lidarity with Ukraine, supporting its sovereignty and territorial 
integrity, and joined in calls for Russia to cease its war.  
1.19.   The representative of Switzerland  strongly condemned Russian military aggression against 
Ukraine, calling it a severe violation of  international law and an infringement on Ukraine's 
sovereignty and territorial integrity. Switzerland demanded that Russia comply with international 
obligations, reverse its actions, withdraw its troops, and contribute to de -escalation, while urging all 
parties to adhere to international law, including humanitarian law.  
1.20.   The representative of Japan  addressed the situation in Ukraine, expressing a firm 
condemnation of Russia's aggression and attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and cities. 
Japan, as the only nation to have suffered from atomic bombings, categorically rejected Russia's 
nuclear threats and any potential use of nuclear weapons. Japan called on Russia to halt its 
aggression, withdraw its forces immediately from Ukraine, and adhere to Ukra ine's internationally 
recognized borders. Japan committed to continue imposing severe sanctions on Russia and providing 
significant support to Ukraine in collaboration with the international community.  
1.21.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thanked Uk raine for its ongoing efforts to ensure 
transparency in the WTO regarding national standards and TBT matters. Korea joined the 
international chorus in strongly condemning Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine and affirmed that 
Ukraine's sovereignty, territori al integrity, and independence must be upheld.  
1.22.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated the obligation  of the Chairperson  to 
moderate discussions to ensure adherence to the agenda , rules of procedure and  terms of reference 
of the Committee. He noted that noted that according to the Rules of Procedure, the Chair should 
interrupt if remarks are not pertinent to the agenda item or the Committee's terms of reference. He 
cited Article 13 of the TBT Agreement, which stipulates that the Committee's purpose is to consult 
on matters related to the operation of the Agreement or its objectives. The representative expressed 
concern that recent interventions deviated from these mandates, resulting in a misuse of the 
delegates' time.  The representative of Russia invited those delegates who were interested in the 
special military operation conducted by the Russian Federation in Ukraine to follow the work of 
relevant UN bodies, where Russia shared in detail information on the root causes of the operation 
as well as insights regarding current phase of the operation. He emphasised that interventions that 
were made by a number of delegations under this agenda item aimed to justify illegitimate unilateral 
trade restrictive coer cive measures with extraterritorial effect introduced against Russian exports. 
Such measures were a reason for the disruption of global supply chains, increased energy costs, 
cost of freight and insurance that led to growing price level across the world. R ussia underscored 
that all additional costs due to thousands of unilateral trade restrictive coercive measures were 
passed on to global consumers. It was further noted that wide scale economic repercussions in the 
world could have been avoided if the WTO M embers that had taken the floor under this item had not 
breached basic WTO obligations.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
2.1  Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  
2.1.1   Withdrawn concerns  
2.1.  The Chair reported that the following STC had been withdrawn from t he agenda at the request 
of the concerned Members:  
• Peru - Supreme Decree No. 015 -2019-SA, which amends the Manual of Advertising 
Warnings approved by Supreme Decree No. 012 -2018-SA (ID 618)  
 G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1.2   Reported progress  
2.1.2.1   Peru - Supreme Decree No. 015-2019 -SA, which amends the Manual of 
Advertising Warnings approved by Supreme Decree No. 012 -2018 -SA (ID 6182) 
2.2.  The representative of Brazil  welcomed the Peruvian Government's response to the previously 
expressed concerns over labelling requirements iss ued in the Manual of Advertising Warnings 
approved by the Supreme Decree 012 -2018-SA and amended by Supreme Decree 015 -2019-SA. 
Brazil commended the Peruvian endeavour to ensure the highest health standards that help better 
inform consumers while realignin g its labelling requirement with the Codex. Through the joint effort 
of the different bodies in both countries, the Peruvian Government had managed to promote internal 
measures to allow the use of stickers to insert warnings on the labels of food and bever ages aimed 
at children, in line with international studies on the topic. The success in the negotiations ultimately 
showed the importance of the work developed in the WTO, especially TBT, to overcome barriers to 
trade and strengthen mutually beneficial com mercial ties among nations while promoting high 
regulatory standards.  
2.3.  The representative of Costa Rica  thanked the Government of Peru and its Permanent Delegation 
in Geneva for their efforts and drew attention to the prevailing spirit of dialogue and tran sparency 
between both parties since this trade concern, relating to the Supreme Decree prohibiting the use 
of adhesive labels for foods, was raised in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. On 
1 July 2023, the Supreme Decree was amended and publishe d in the Official Journal, making it 
applicable indefinitely, and was notified to this Committee in document G/TBT/N/PER/97/Add.5 , 
acknowledging that the objectives of protecting public health and informing consumers can be 
achieved by us ing adhesive labels, while adhering to Codex Alimentarius guidelines. Costa Rica 
therefore withdrew this trade concern from the agenda of the Committee on Technical Barriers to 
Trade, while reaffirming the role that this body plays in spurring dialogue and  building bridges to 
eliminate unnecessary barriers to trade, and thanking the Government of Peru for the bilateral 
engagement to date.  
2.4.  The representative of Paraguay  joined the interventions made by Brazil and Costa Rica 
regarding STC 618 and thanked Peru  for its efforts in bringing this standard into compliance and 
accepting the use of additional labelling as a sufficient mechanism to achieve the legitimate 
objectives. Paraguay thanked Peru and noted that thanks also to the work of this Committee, the 
STC had been resolved.  
2.5.  The representative of the United States  added its support for the positive development in 
STC 618. Peru's actions had definitely improved the situation for US exporters.  
2.6.  The representative of the European Union  welcomed the latest devel opment and permanent 
solution to this longstanding concern which emphasized the importance of dialogue within the WTO 
TBT Committee in addressing technical barriers to trade. The EU thanked Peru for their cooperation 
and commitment to addressing such matte rs in the WTO TBT Committee.  
2.7.  The representative of Chile joined others in thanking the delegation of Peru for the progress 
made in this specific trade concern, and indicated that it would not be supporting the STC at this 
meeting, in view of the reported d evelopments.  
2.8.  The representative of Peru thanked Brazil, Costa Rica, Paraguay and other delegations for 
withdrawing the specific trade concern relating to the Manual of Health Warnings in the framework 
of Law No. 30021 on the promotion of healthy eating amo ng children and adolescents. In this regard, 
on 1 July 2023, Supreme Decree No. 017 -2023-SA entered into force, amending  paragraphs 8.3 and 
8.5 of section 8 of the Manual of Health Warnings, in the framework of the aforementioned Law. The 
use of labels or indelible marking on the front side of the product label is therefore permitted 
indefinitely.  The Committee was duly not ified of this in writing through document 
G/TBT/N/PER/97/Add.5 . Accordingly, while reiterating its appreciation for the withdrawal of the STC, 
Peru reaffirmed its commitment to refrain  from preparing, adopting or applying technical regulat ions 
that may create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.  
 
2 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 618. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.1.2.2   Mongolia - Draft Law on controlling the circulation of alcohol beverages, and fight 
against alcoholism (ID 7303) 
2.9.  The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked the delegation of Mongolia  for the progress 
seen in relation to its concerns on the draft law for controlling the circulation of alcohol beverages, 
and fight against alcoholism. The UK had met bilaterally with Mongolia several times and welcomed 
the amendments made to permit the ap plication of tax stickers in tax bonded warehouses. The UK 
believed this had now reduced the trade restrictiveness of this measure and addressed its concerns 
in the TBT space. The representative hoped for continued collaboration with Mongolia in order to 
address concerns which sit in the remit of other committees and thanked Mongolia for their 
engagement, appreciating the opportunity to draw attention to the good work that can be 
undertaken in this Committee in order to reduce barriers to trade.  
2.10.   The repres entative of the European Union  thanked Mongolia for their clarifications and support 
and reported that this issue had been resolved.  
2.1.2.3   United States - United States - Chapter 173 -337 of WAC, safer products restriction 
and reporting (ID 7874) 
2.11.   The representa tive of the Republic of Korea  stated that it was withdrawing from STC ID 787 
– United States – Chapter 173 -337 of WAC, safer products restriction and reporting.  
2.1.2.4   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Electrical Clothes Dryers Energy Performance 
Requirements and Labelli ng (ID 6055) 
2.12.   The Chair  reported that the delegation of the Republic of Korea had informed the Secretariat 
of some positive developments with respect to this STC , which was now indicated as resolved . 
2.1.2.5   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Air Conditioners - Minimum Energy Performance, 
Labelling and Testing Requirements for Low Capacity Window Type and Single -Split 
(ID 6686) 
2.13.   The Chair  reported that the delegation of the Republic of Korea had informed the Secretariat 
of some positive developments with respect to this STC, which was now indicated as resolved.  
2.1.2.6   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Electrical Clothes Washing Machines – Energy and 
Water performance Requirements and labelling (ID 6197) 
2.14.   The Chair  reported that the delegation of the Republic of Korea had informe d the Secretariat 
of some positive developments with respect to this STC, which was now indicated as partially 
resolved.  
2.1.3   New Specific Trade Concerns  
2.1.3.1   India - Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment 
Regulations, 2023, G/TBT/N/IND/271  (ID 8058) 
2.15.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement. The delegation of Mexico 
refers to the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Regulation, 2023, 
notified to Members of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade in document G/TBT/N/IND/271 , 
and refers to the communication sent by the Government of Mexico to the Government of India on 
4 August 2023. In this connection, the delegation of Mexico would like to express the following 
concerns and requests: The draft Regulation excludes drinks made from wine and beer from the 
definition of ready -to-drink/low alcoholic beverages, which could contravene Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement, by creating an unnecessary obstacle to the trade in such products. The Government of 
 
3 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 730. 
4 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 787. 
5 For previous statements follow the thread  under ID 605. 
6 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 668. 
7 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 619. 
8 For previous statements f ollow the thread under ID 805. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 7 - 
 
  India is therefore requeste d to provide the technical and scientific evidence underpinning the 
definition of ready -to-drink/low -alcoholic beverages proposed in the Regulations. Furthermore, the 
Regulation could hinder trade for third -country producers wishing to export ready -to-drink/low -
alcoholic beverages, as it imposes a maximum limit of 8% of alcohol by volume (ABV), which would 
impede market access for new products.  
2.16.   India is therefore requested to provide the technical and scientific evidence underpinning the 
decision to set th e maximum alcohol content of ready -to-drink/low -alcoholic beverages at 8% ABV. 
In addition, India is requested to provide the technical and scientific evidence or the international 
standards underpinning the decision to set maximum limits with respect to t he physico -chemical 
specifications to be met by alcoholic beverages marketed in India. Lastly, the delegation of India is 
kindly requested to clarify whether the specifications for "country liquors" are applicable to imported 
liquors, and to provide a resp onse to the comments submitted by the Government of Mexico during 
the public consultation period on the Regulation. The delegation of Mexico thanks the delegation of 
India for giving its consideration to this statement.  
2.17.   The representative of the European U nion provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to thank India for notifying this measure allowing thus other WTO Members to make comments 
in writing, discuss them, and take these comments and discussions into account. The EU provided 
its comments  on 1 September; however, it did not yet receive any reply from India to the questions 
raised therein. Therefore, the EU would like to reiterate its comments as follows. The draft Food 
Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Regulations, 2023,  add the category of 
"ready -to-drink beverages" and while the EU welcomes the Indian authorities' objective to provide 
ready to drink beverages (RTDs) with a legal framework, the EU has concerns regarding the 
proposed definition, particularly: (i) the rang e for the content of alcohol, (ii) ingredients, and (iii) 
the recognition of nitrogen as a permitted additive for RTDs.  
2.18.   First, as regards the definition, it does not seem to be in line with international standards and 
could create unnecessary barriers to trade, as defined by the Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 
Namely, limiting RTDs to beverages having less than 8.0% of alcohol ABV will have the effect of 
excluding a significant part of the RTDs range from the Indian market. The proposed limit of the 
alcohol content of RTDs is not in line with the Codex Alimentarius in which RTDs are included in the 
Food Category 14.2.7 (Aromatized alcoholic beverages) and which specifies that "most of these 
products contain less than 15% alcohol", and not 8% as proposed i n the Indian Regulation. The 
Codes, actually, recognize that some traditional non -standardized aromatized products may contain 
even up to 24% alcohol. Therefore, the EU suggests deleting the proposed maximum 8% ABV level 
for RTDs, or increasing it to at le ast 15% ABV, in order to align the definition with Codex and ensure 
that imported products will not be excluded from the Indian marketplace. Second, the list of 
ingredients that can be used to produce RTDs appears to be too restrictive and would exclude ma ny 
RTDs produced by third countries to be marketed in India. For instance, RTDs can be mixtures of 
different spirit drinks categories (vodka and liqueur), or mixtures of a spirit drink and wine (liqueur 
and white wine). According to the Codex Alimentarius,  RTDs are defined as prepared cocktails and 
"mixtures of liquors, liqueurs, wines, essences, fruit and plant extracts, etc.". Hence, the EU suggests 
amending the proposed definition, in order to align it with Codex and to allow the addition of any 
alcoholi c beverage to produce RTDs.  
2.19.   Third, the proposed definition does not explicitly allow the use of liquid nitrogen for RTDs, 
whereas Codex Alimentarius does so. The EU therefore suggests amending the definition to allow 
the use of nitrogen in RTDs to avoid cr eating a barrier to innovation. Lastly, the EU invites the 
authorities of India to clarify whether "ready -to-drink" and "low -alcoholic beverage" must both be 
stated on the label or whether they can be stated in a mutually exclusive manner. The EU kindly 
asks the authorities of India to review the entire definition of RTDs and align the draft Regulation to 
Codex, unless there are objective justifications for such deviations, which the EU would like India to 
provide information on. With regard to nitrogenated  beer, the EU welcomes the acknowledgement 
of "nitrogenated" or "nitro" beer. Nevertheless, the EU notes that the proposed amendment in 
Column No 8, table 3 in Article 1(8) does not mention the category "nitro beer", but merely "strong". 
The EU suggests th at the alcohol bands be broadened, so that beers with alcohol content lower than 
5% ABV are also recognized as "nitro" beers. The EU suggests a "nitro beer" category with "strong" 
and "regular" columns mimicking the approach taken for the existing beer and  draught beer 
categories. Furthermore, to be able to accommodate "nitro" beers with lower carbonation levels, the 
carbon dioxide ranges should be amended as 0.75 -3.6 v/v. With climate change policies requiring 
initiatives for decarbonation, the availabilit y of further lower ranges will grow. Their prohibition from G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 8 - 
 
  the Indian market would not be justified from both brewing science and environmental perspectives. 
The EU would be grateful if the above -mentioned comments could be taken into account and replied 
to before adoption of the notified draft.  
2.20.   In response, the representative of India provided the following statement. We thank Mexico, 
European Union for their interest in India's regulation titled "Draft Food Safety and Standards 
(Alcoholic Beverages) Amen dment Regulations, 2023". We are currently examining the statements 
made.  
2.1.3.2   Argentina, Uruguay - Draft Resolution No.02/23 -MERCOSUR Technical 
Regulation on definitions relating to alcoholic beverages (except fermented beverages), 
their raw materials and man ufacturing processes (Repeal of GMC Resolution No.77/94)), 
G/TBT/N/ARG/444 ; G/TBT/N/URY/85  (ID 8069) 
2.21.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement. The Mexican delegation refers 
to draft Resolution No.02/23 - MERCOSUR Technica l Regulations on definitions relating to alcoholic 
beverages (except fermented beverages), their raw materials and manufacturing processes 
(Repealing GMC Resolution No.77/94), notified to the members of the TBT Committee in documents 
G/TBT/N/ARG/444  and G/TBT/N/URY/85 . We also refer to the communication sent by the 
Government of Mexico to the Government of Argentina on 10 August 2023, containing comments 
on the MERCOSUR Regulations. We would also like to say that, while the Government of Mexico  
recognizes the efforts of MERCOSUR trading partners to keep technical regulations up -to-date, 
particularly the regulations of ever -changing industries such as the alcoholic beverage industry, it is 
important to ensure that elements of previous regulations  that remain in force are taken into account 
when updating technical regulations, in order to maintain trade flows. In this connection, the 
delegation of Mexico would like to know why the definition of tequila is not included in the 
Regulations, considerin g that it is included in the regulations to be repealed. Failure to consider 
tequila as an (unfermented) alcoholic beverage could contravene the principle of proportionality, 
stipulated in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, as it creates an unnecessary barr ier to trade by 
modifying existing trade conditions. Lastly, the delegation of Mexico requests the delegation of 
Argentina provide a reply to the comments submitted by the Government of Mexico during the public 
consultation period on the Regulations.  
2.22.   In re sponse, the representative of Argentina  provided the following statement. First, as 
provided by the draft MERCOSUR Technical Regulation notified by Argentina, the aim of this 
Regulation is to update the harmonized definitions of alcoholic beverages (except  fermented 
beverages), their raw materials and manufacturing processes, which were agreed upon several years 
ago at the MERCOSUR level under GMC Resolution No. 77/94. The fact that the new proposed 
Regulation does not include the definition of the term "Te quila" (which, to date, has been included 
in GMC Resolution No. 77/94) should not be interpreted as an obligation to eliminate this term from 
the national legislations of the four States Parties of the bloc. Put simply, the term "Tequila" will no 
longer ha ve a harmonized definition at the MERCOSUR level, and, as in other cases, each MERCOSUR 
State Party shall be free to include a definition of the term in its national legal system. In the case 
of Argentina, this facilitates the implementation of what was ag reed at the 6th Meeting of the 
Argentina -Mexico Commission on Economic, Trade and Investment Affairs, held in Buenos  Aires on 
19 May 2023. At that meeting, Argentina undertook to begin taking the necessary steps to grant 
recognition of the appellation of o rigin "Tequila", within the framework and subject to the outcome 
of bilateral negotiations between Argentina and Mexico on a new Additional Protocol to Economic 
Complementarity Agreement No. 6 (ECA No. 6). Eliminating the term "Tequila" from GMC Resolution  
No. 77/94 is precisely what will enable the advancement of the procedure being carried out at the 
national level to comply with this bilateral understanding. This procedure is well under way and is 
expected to come to completion soon by way of internal co nsultation. In this regard, withdrawing 
the term "Tequila" will in no way impede trade; rather, the withdrawal seeks to pave the way towards 
facilitating the negotiation of the 17th Additional Protocol to ECA  No. 6. With regard to the comments 
shared by th e Government of Mexico during the public consultation period for the Regulation, we 
wish to report that consultations with the relevant bodies are under way, and feedback will be 
provided as soon as possible.  
2.23.   In response, the representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Uruguay would 
like to thank Mexico for its interest in Draft Common Market Group (GMC) Resolution No.  02/23: 
 
9 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 806. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 9 - 
 
  MERCOSUR Technical Resolution on definitions relating to alcoholic beverages (other than 
fermented), their raw materi als and production process (Repeal of GMC Resolution No.  77/94). In 
this connection, the relevant draft Technical Regulation was notified by Uruguay to the WTO in 
document G/TBT/N/URY/85  on 1 August  2023, with a 60 -day consultation period, in fulfilme nt of 
the transparency obligations under the TBT Agreement. During this period, Uruguay received 
comments from several WTO Members, including Mexico. The comments received continue to be 
analysed internally as part of the process of reviewing these draft r egulations, which have not yet 
been approved or incorporated into the legal system of any of the MERCOSUR States parties. With 
regard to the scope of the harmonized rules within MERCOSUR, these reflect the points on which 
technical agreement exists between  MERCOSUR States parties. As indicated by the Argentine 
delegation, the fact that an alcoholic beverage is not included in the draft GMC Resolution does not 
preclude MERCOSUR member States from regulating it through domestic legislation. In this regard, 
Uruguay hereby notifies that it is working on a complementary decree, which will regulate aspects 
not addressed in draft GMC Resolution No. 02/23 and will be notified to the WTO in fulfilment, again, 
of the transparency obligations under the TBT Agreement. I t is regrettable that the Mexican 
delegation has decided to immediately raise a specific trade concern with the WTO TBT Committee 
when, in our view, there are no objective reasons for doing so, and this point could have been 
satisfactorily clarified throug h bilateral dialogue between the capitals or in Geneva. In future, we 
invite the Mexican delegation to use existing bilateral channels in this regard.  
2.1.3.3   European Union - Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on the making av ailable on the Union market and the export from the Union 
of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation 
and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 (ID 80710) 
2.24.   The representative of the United States  provided the fol lowing statement. The United States 
believes that this is a technical regulation as it regulates product characteristics for derived products 
and it includes conformity assessment procedures in its due diligence requirements. As such, the 
United States bel ieves this measure is within the scope of the TBT Agreement and should be notified 
to the TBT Committee. As a leader in addressing deforestation, the United States has been 
committed to conserving critical ecosystems and addressing drivers of global defore station since the 
early 1900s. Based on this experience, the United States emphasizes that deforestation is a global 
issue that requires cooperative approaches by national competent authorities and civil society 
organizations rather than unilateral action.  For this reason, the United States has strong concerns 
with the EU's unilateral approach in this space. Specifically, we are deeply concerned that the EU's 
approach may not be well -calibrated to effectively address root causes of deforestation and that it  
may adversely impact trade by imposing significant costs and burdens to global supply chains 
without providing measurable benefits to curb global deforestation. While we are still evaluating the 
full impact, it is our understanding that the EU's regulatio n will add billions in costs for a variety of 
industries, in both markets, and potentially complicate supply chains without producing a sufficiently 
tangible benefit to the global fight against deforestation from each affected industry or market.  
2.25.   We understand that the regulation has been formally adopted and published in the EU's 
Official Journal; however, additional work must be done to develop the country benchmarking 
methodology and implementing guidance for Member States. We request continued consultations 
between our technical experts to discuss ways this regulation can be better calibrated to address 
global deforestation and avoid imposing undue burdens on any producers that a party can 
demonstrate do not contribute to global deforestation. G iven that this regulation is expected to have 
a significant impact on international trade, the United States respectfully requests that the EU delay 
implementation of this regulation, notify the regulation to the WTO TBT Committee, provide 
adequate time fo r stakeholder comment, and take those comments into account before 
implementing the final regulation. The United States looks forward to further technical dialogue on 
this regulation.  
2.26.   The representative of India provided the following statement. India is concerned with 
European Union's "Regulation on deforestation -free products" (Regulation (EU) No. 995/20102) 
("Regulation"). The EU's omission to notify the Regulation to the Committee on Technical Barriers 
to Tra de ("TBT") raises serious questions with respect to the compliance with the TBT Agreement. 
India believes that the Regulation would have a disproportionate impact on countries with agrarian 
economies that have significantly large population and vast tracts  of forest land. Though the 
 
10 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 807. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Regulation claims to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals ("SDG"), 
it is noted that the Regulation would, in fact, have an adverse impact on the achievement of other 
SDGs such as "no poverty" (SDG1) , "zero hunger" (SDG2) and "reduced equality" (SDG10). The EU 
has failed to disclose the scientific basis on which it has selected the seven "relevant commodities" 
and the evidence to demonstrate that the targeted seven products pose a high risk to defores tation. 
Additionally, the retroactive cut -off dates and the burdensome due diligence processes, including 
annual reviews, are some of the specific concerns that would affect the trade in the relevant 
commodities between India and EU. The EU has unilaterall y introduced a three -tier risk assessment 
system under which every country would be assessed and categorised into High, low or standard 
risk countries. No objective criteria have been disclosed for the risk assessment model. There is a 
high risk that the r isk assessment could turn out to be highly subjective.  
2.27.   Further, EU shall not be the sole arbiter of the efforts of other Members for reducing the 
environmental impact of deforestation activities. The provision relating to cooperation with third 
countries is vague and lacks any substantive methodology for implementation. India is concerned 
that the Chapter relating to the country benchmarking system and cooperation with third countries 
confers an unreasonable amount of discretion to the Commission to assess  the risk level of countries, 
without any accountability or transparency. India believes that the cumbersome implementation 
mechanism provided in the Regulation does not address the policy objectives sought to be achieved. 
The due diligence obligations in the Regulation apply to operators that "place a relevant commodity 
in the Union market". The burden on an operator would increase manifold for collecting data 
conducting due diligence, assessing the risk, providing information to the competent authorities in 
the EU market, maintain the data for a period of five years, etc. There are legitimate concerns that 
even the exporters/producers that follow "deforestation -free" agricultural practices may be denied 
access to the Union market if the "operators" in the Union market (to whom the exporters/producers 
supply their products) are unwilling to comply with the due diligence requirements. The ban on 
"placing a product in the Union market" unless they are "deforestation -free" appears to be excessive, 
and India is concerned that the EU has made insufficient attempts to consider less -trade restrictive 
alternatives to meet its objectives. India urges EU not to implement the Regulation before arriving 
at a consensus with trading partners on the definitions, scope of pr oducts covered, cut -off date, due 
diligence, risk assessment, etc.  
2.28.   The representative of Colombia  provided the following statement. First, Colombia would like 
to state that it shares the objectives of reducing deforestation and forest degradation at the gl obal 
level, as part of its efforts to promote sustainability and combat climate change. Nevertheless, we 
are concerned that the implementation and enforcement of this measure could become barriers to 
trade for some exports, even when these exports bear lit tle or no relation to deforestation. I say this 
because some key Colombian export sectors, such as cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber and soy, 
would be required to provide a due diligence statement to demonstrate that they are 
deforestation -free. In t his context, there are concerns about implementing the measure because 
there could potentially be multiple models of the due diligence statement, and certification that 
already takes such risks of deforestation into account could lose its relevance. On the  other hand, 
this Regulation does not take into account local circumstances and capacities, national legislation 
and certification mechanisms in developing producer countries. It is clear that the European Union's 
"one-size-fits-all" model, based on due di ligence and traceability, disregards the varying local 
conditions, imposing high costs on exporting nations, producers and consumers. The most harmful 
effects of this Regulation stem from excessive administrative tasks related to geolocation, 
traceability requirements, certification and customs procedures. We therefore agree with the United 
States that deforestation is a global problem that requires a cooperative approach rather than 
unilateral action. Lastly, I would like to reiterate that Colombia values environmental objectives and 
is committed to efforts aimed at combating deforestation and defending multilateral commitments, 
of course under the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. We are also ready to 
engage in constructive dialogue in  order to strike a balance between conservation objectives and 
trade needs. We therefore call for a detailed and objective revision of the Regulation to ensure that 
it complies with WTO principles and obligations and for consideration of less restrictive a lternatives 
that could achieve the desired goal without creating unnecessary barriers to international trade.  
2.29.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Paraguay reaffirms its 
commitment to environmental objectives and principles. In particular, we are at pains to stress our 
commitment to combating deforestation and forest degradation. However, we are concerned about 
how European legislation addresses these issues. Paraguay thanks the European Union for the 
information session held dur ing Environment Week, the circulation of document WT/CTE/GEN/30 , G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 11 - 
 
  the recent publication of a document with frequently asked questions, and the bilateral discussions. 
However, concerns persist, as evidenced by Members' concerns and queries, as seen from  the 
number of questions submitted in the various bodies of this Organization, including the General 
Council. This Regulation and other unilateral measures that supposedly have environmental 
objectives and a clear impact on trade are being discussed in sev eral bodies of this Organization, 
including the General Council. The EU has already announced that it will organize a new information 
session at the next meeting of the Committee on Trade and Environment. We thus hope that the EU 
will be able to respond to  the questions and concerns raised in one of these forums, as what Members 
need is a dialogue and for their concerns to be taken into account, not a unilateral presentation on 
EU measures. Allow me, Chair, to conclude my statement by calling on the EU once  again to engage 
in "effective cooperation and meaningful dialogue with its partners in the areas of trade and 
sustainable development to jointly address the impact of EU legislation and its implementing 
instruments, including providing support to facilita te trade". In addition, I would like to let you know 
that, together with other Members, we will forward written questions on this measure to the EU 
within the framework of the Committee on Trade and Environment.  
2.30.   The representative of Canada  provided the fo llowing statement. Canada would like to thank 
the US, India, Colombia and Paraguay for raising this specific trade concern. Canada shares the EU's 
desire to address deforestation globally and recognizes the scope and scale of what the EU is 
undertaking reg arding deforestation free supply chains. However, Canada is concerned that some 
of the compliance measures proposed in this regulation will result in barriers to trade for Canadian 
exports of several important products, even though they are at low risk of having stemmed from 
deforestation. Based on information provided thus far by the European Commission, it seems clear 
that, in particular, the geo -location requirement provided for in the Regulation will be unworkable 
for many Canadian exporters, particular ly for composite or bulk products such as paper, soy beans, 
or wood pellets. While we respect the aims of the regulation, and understand the desire for 
traceability, we ask that the EU consider a more flexible approach to meeting some of these 
compliance o bjectives. We also ask the EU to consider delaying the entry into force of this Regulation 
given the large number of uncertainties around how the Regulation will be enforced, and the country 
benchmarking process. We further call upon the EU to notify the m easure to the TBT Committee and 
allow the appropriate time for Members to provide comments. Reducing unnecessary and unintended 
effects on trade, particularly when sourcing agricultural and forest products that originate from 
countries with well -managed, s table forest area, is critical at this time of global economic 
uncertainty. To that end, it is imperative that complex requirements such as those included in the 
Regulation are well thought through and feasible.  
2.31.   The representative of Australia  provided the  following statement. Australia wishes to add its 
voice to the concerns raised by other Members. Australia shares international concerns about the 
global rate of deforestation and its impacts on climate and biodiversity. Australia supports measures 
that ad dress global deforestation and forest degradation and is committed to halting and reversing 
net forest loss and land degradation by 2030 as a signatory to the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on 
Forests and Land Use and the Forests and Climate Leaders' Partner ship. Nevertheless, Australia, like 
many countries, uses specific definitions derived from internationally agreed terms and adapted to 
national circumstances, considering factors such as tree height and canopy cover. The one -size-fits-
all definitions used in the regulation do not consider Australia's unique forest ecosystems. Australia 
is concerned that the use of satellite imagery to develop the EU Forest Observatory will not 
accurately reflect the status of Australia's forests. Added to which, there is an  alarming lack of clarity 
and detail around the methodology applied to the country risk rating system that will be used to 
determine each country's risk rating. Australia asks the EU to provide opportunities to verify the 
data on Australia's forest status in the map being built by the Commission. Australia is willing to 
assist and provide information to the EU as required.  
2.32.   Furthermore, Australia and other WTO Members are concerned the EU's deforestation 
measures are more restrictive than necessary and crea te unnecessary barriers to international trade, 
creating a costly and time -consuming compliance burden. Noting this regulation has been adopted 
and will apply from 30 December 2024, Australia is concerned about the limited compliance 
timeframe until entry into force of the regulation. Australian producers and exporters of affected 
commodities and products will need to develop fit -for-purpose traceability systems to record and 
transfer geolocation data throughout their supply chains to meet the requirements of the regulation. 
This will be complex, costly and time intensive to achieve; added to which, some derived products 
captured in the regulation such as leather for example are already in production. Australia requests 
the EU provide specific guidance for p roducers and exporters of affected commodities and products G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 12 - 
 
  by the first quarter of 2024. Australia notes the EU is developing guidelines for implementation of 
the regulation by member States. Australia requests information on the regulatory approaches to 
be taken by member States, including the process for review in the event of detained consignments, 
be provided to third countries as soon as possible. Australia further seeks clarification from the EU 
on the role of the European Commission in overseeing th e implementation of the regulation by 
member States and how the European Commission will resolve disputes between an exporter and 
the member State border authority.  
2.33.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil also manifests its su pport 
for the STC raised by the United States, India, Colombia and Paraguay, regarding the Regulation 
(EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The EU's "one -size-fits-all" approach, 
implemented through this model of due diligence and t raceability, ignores the different local 
conditions and will inevitably impose immense costs on exporting and importing countries alike, as 
well as on producers and consumers. While these costs are certain, we consider that the legislation, 
by itself, will  bear no positive impact on deforestation rates and may even produce other adverse 
effects, such as increased poverty, diversion of resources, and hindrance of the attainment of SDGs. 
Smallholders are especially vulnerable to the EUDR and require special s upport. The EU should 
acknowledge the efforts made by developing countries to improve their livelihood and sustainability 
practices as well as the significant challenges faced by them regarding limited access to financing 
schemes, new technologies and tech nical training and assistance. Smallholders may end up being 
excluded from international value chains not because they have deforested their land but due to 
their inability to show compliance with the stringent requirements imposed by the EUDR. That would 
unfairly deprive smallholders of an important source of income and livelihood, and even impact their 
ability to adopt sustainable practices. We call, therefore, on the Commission to formulate clear and 
detailed implementing acts and guidelines that include  differentiated compliance and due diligence 
regimes for commodities and products originating from smallholders in developing countries, 
considering that EU SMEs will be granted more flexible treatment.  
2.34.   In conclusion: 1. The EU should work to repair this legislation, or, at a minimum, aim to 
mitigate its more harmful impacts through implementation guidelines that adequately value the 
current, as well as developing local sustainable practices in agricultural value chains, and avoid trade 
disruption includin g the excessive administrative burden related to the geolocation and traceability 
requirements, certifications, and customs procedures. 2. We reiterate our commitment to the SDGs 
and to multilateral environmental agreements and goals. Given our shared obje ctives and the need 
to work together to tackle global challenges, we call on the EU to engage in effective cooperation 
and meaningful dialogue, with its partners in the areas of trade and sustainable development to 
jointly address the impact of EU legislat ion and its implementing instruments, including providing 
support to facilitate trade.  
2.35.   The representative of Peru provided the following statement. Peru would like to thank the 
delegations of the United States, India, Colombia and Paraguay for having submi tted the specific 
trade concern regarding the EU regulation on deforestation -free products for discussion in this 
Committee. In this regard, we would also like to share our concern over this regulation, considering 
its potential impact on trade flows in pr oducts that fall under its scope, especially in those chains 
involving small -scale producers. In the case of Peru, exports of the products covered by the 
regulation form a significant share of Peru's agricultural exports to the world. It is a major supplie r 
of such products, based on high quality and sustainability standards. Palm oil, cocoa, coffee and 
timber value chains have been growing and the European Union is one of our top markets. Thousands 
of small -scale producers (200,000 for coffee and 90,000 fo r cocoa, for example) are involved in 
these chains. This is why policies that impact products like these have major repercussions for 
exports from our country overall and, ultimately, for our economy, affecting thousands of producers 
whose livelihoods depe nd on the sale and export of such goods.  
2.36.   We understand that the measure includes conformity assessment procedures and lays down 
product characteristics. However, the transparency procedures established by the Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade have n ot yet been followed. Furthermore, we are concerned that there 
are still many aspects of this European regulation that remain unclear or require supplementary 
regulations. This means that the actual time frame that operators and agents within these value 
chains have to make the necessary adjustments for compliance will be far shorter than the 18 -month 
time frame for implementation established by the regulation. By way of example, the EU regulation 
does not specify what documents operators will require for e xporters to be able to prove that their 
products are deforestation -free and that they comply with the legal parameters established. The G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 13 - 
 
  time frames for all the procedures envisaged by the regulation are also not specified, which will 
result in significant discretion and ambiguity in their implementation, potentially affecting trade. 
Moreover, this regulation appears to favour European Union member States and nationals over third 
countries given that it establishes a time frame of six months for EU members t o only provide 
notification of the competent authorities responsible for complying with the obligations under the 
regulation, while third countries are expected to implement complicated processes within 18 months, 
including in relation to traceability, geo location and the monitoring of agricultural chains involving 
hundreds of thousands of producers. Furthermore, it establishes a special time frame of 24 months 
to implement the regulation in SMEs within the bloc, whereas MSMEs and small -scale producers from  
third countries that are suppliers to the chains will have to comply with all the requirements within 
the aforementioned 18 -month time frame.  
2.37.   In addition, countries will be assigned a deforestation risk rating, the specific criteria and 
methodology for wh ich have not been communicated to the countries affected. In this respect, if the 
rating is based on general indices and does not take into account the specific circumstances that 
may arise in each country, it could have a negative effect on producers and exporters from low -risk 
areas, putting them at a disadvantage in relation to like products from other countries. Peru is 
committed to addressing the threat of climate change, global warming and deforestation. However, 
we believe that, in order to do so, un necessarily trade -restrictive measures must be avoided. We 
cannot lose sight of the fact that among the main drivers of deforestation are poverty and the lack 
of options for generating income, which the opportunities offered by international trade can addr ess. 
This is especially true for the products within the scope of the European regulation, which in Peru's 
case have also served as alternatives for illicit crops such as coca leaf. To conclude, we believe this 
regulation should be implemented only once an  in-depth discussion on the matter has been held in 
a multilateral setting, there is clarity on the requirements and time frames laid down, and there is 
enough certainty to resolve any issues its implementation may cause, without creating unnecessary 
obsta cles to trade.  
2.38.   The representative of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand 
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EU's Deforestation Regulation. While we, like others, 
share the desire to eliminate unsustainable deforestation, an d to halt and reverse global forest loss, 
we remain unconvinced about the effectiveness of the EU's approach. We are also deeply concerned 
about the significant impact of the EU's implementation of these deforestation regulations on global 
trade. We are pa rticularly concerned at the high implementation costs of this approach, including 
for those countries that maintain sustainable forestry systems and practices and for exporters whose 
production systems are not linked to unsustainable deforestation. We also  hold a systemic concern 
about the prescriptive nature of the measure and the disregard for local conditions of production. 
New Zealand believes that a more effective approach would involve WTO Members working together 
collectively in this House, rather th an through contributing to the proliferation of unilateral initiatives 
which cause trade disruption and risk fragmenting the international trading system. We encourage 
Members to collaborate, including at the WTO, to consider how trade facilitation and oth er trade 
levers can be used to address global challenges such as deforestation.  
2.39.   The representative of Argentina  provided the following statement. Argentina would like to 
thank the United States, India, Colombia and Paraguay for including this item on the a genda. 
Argentina is convinced that the European legislation can be improved in order to adequately reflect 
local circumstances, national legislation and certification mechanisms in developing countries. We 
strongly believe that a fair and collaborative app roach is always more constructive when 
implementing "one -size-fits-all" solutions. Indeed, we advocate a collaborative approach to 
addressing global challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, while 
recognizing the specificities of our country and developing countries. The Argentine Republic 
reiterates its commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, its goals and 
multilateral environmental goals. In this context, we believe that our efforts and achievements as 
regar ds the sustainability of national agri -food systems deserve fair recognition. Given our role as 
partners of the European Union in multilateral environmental forums and the World Trade 
Organization (WTO), we hope that the directives for the implementation o f the legislation and risk 
assessment are developed by the European Commission through cooperation and consultation. In 
particular, we believe that in this process, the European Commission has the opportunity to consider 
the challenges that a unilateral re gulation like the Regulation on deforestation -free products (EUDR) 
poses to developing countries, especially to their small producers, which is an issue that was not 
taken into account in the drafting of the Regulation. We therefore value dialogue as a mea ns of 
ensuring recognition of the environmental achievements of our agri -food system, which is supported G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 14 - 
 
  by national regulations and certification systems that merit adequate consideration. We urge the 
European Union to enter into, continue or deepen dialo gue to address the concerns of the Members 
involved.  
2.40.   The representative of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement. This is to echo 
concerns raised by other delegations on the EU deforestation regulation as the regulation is of strong 
conce rn to Russia as well. We set out our position multiple times on this regulation in other WTO 
working bodies, including in CTG and CMA.  
2.41.   The representative of Panama  provided the following statement. Panama wishes to echo the 
statements made by previous spea kers. Panama also shares the environmental objectives of 
combating deforestation as set out in the Regulation. However, we wish to express our deep concern 
about this standard, as it is having an impact on trade and creating a great deal of uncertainty in 
my country. We hope that the EU can respond to the questions and concerns submitted by Members 
in this Committee and in other forums of this Organization. We need a constructive dialogue to 
address our concerns.  
2.42.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the  following statement. Indonesia would like to 
thank for the opportunity to comment on this agenda item. At the outset, we want to join others in 
voicing our deep concern regarding the unfolding development of the EU deforestation policy. In this 
regard, de spite its well intention, we are still of the view that there are some aspects in the regulation 
that we need to carefully consider prior to its implementation in December 2024. In particular, we 
need to carefully consider the negative impacts that such po licy will bring to the trade of agricultural 
products as well as to the small -holder farmers. Moreover, we are of the view that tackling the 
deforestation issues will require more intensified cooperation instead of creating unnecessary trade 
barriers. The last thing we need at this point is unilateral trade measures under the disguise of 
protecting the environment, which undermine the system and pose a significant threat to developing 
Members and LDCs. At the same time we are not sure how the impacts of thi s policy will actually 
create differences in our common efforts of preventing deforestation. We urge the EU to continue 
their open dialogue and outreach activities, especially those involving producing countries, on this 
issue We also seek the possibility of amending such legislation to take into account this growing 
valid concern from Members.  
2.43.   The representative of Guatemala  provided the following statement. We thank the United 
States, India, Colombia and Paraguay for including this item on the agenda. Gu atemala shares the 
objectives of reducing deforestation at the national and global levels. However, applying these 
measures in the absence of clear procedures and guidance creates greater uncertainty for producer -
exporters. A number of concerns have arisen , however, as these measures may constitute an 
unnecessary barrier to trade, creating excessive costs for several Guatemalan export sectors and 
particularly small producers. Producers are making every effort to achieve sustainable production 
and comply wit h the requirements set out in international standards. However, these requirements 
may not be compatible with the conditions and realities of rural areas that are not associated with 
sustainable production. Our concern is that a one -size-fits-all model is being applied without 
recognizing trading partners' geographical differences and conditions, particularly those in 
developing countries. We ask that the European Union consider a more flexible approach 
commensurate with the realities of its trading partner s, and engage in dialogue with its trading 
partners.  
2.44.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council (On the making available 
on the Union marke t and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated 
with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010) was 
published in the EU Official Journal on 9 June 2023, entered into force twenty days late r, and it shall 
fully apply from 30 December 2024. The EU considers this Regulation to be outside the scope of the 
definition of a technical regulation within the meaning of Annex 1 to the WTO TBT Agreement. For 
this reason, the EU did not notify this Regu lation to the WTO TBT Committee. The Regulation 
2023/1115 does not "lay down" or otherwise prescribe, positively or negatively, "product 
characteristics". The Regulation only refers to conditions that have to be met before placing the 
products on the EU ma rket or exporting products from the EU market, in its Article 3, which reads: 
"Relevant commodities and products may be placed or made available on the Union market, or 
exported from the Union market only if all the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) they are 
deforestation -free; (b) they have been produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 15 - 
 
  country of production; and (c) they are covered by a due diligence statement as laid down in 
Article  4(2)."  
2.45.   The definition of "deforestation free" i s provided in Article 2 (13): "Deforestation -free' means: 
(a) that the relevant commodities and products, including those used for or contained in relevant 
products, were produced on land that has not been subject to deforestation after 31 December 2020, 
and (b) that the wood has been harvested from the forest without inducing forest degradation after 
31 December 2020;". Nevertheless, the EU has been extremely transparent and forward leaning on 
this Regulation. The EU informed the WTO Committee on Trade and  Environment on several 
occasions, most recently on 12 June 2023, and before, in March this year and in October last year. 
Furthermore, the EU is proactively engaging with the WTO Members through information sessions it 
hosts, the next one to be organized on 15 November alongside the WTO Committee on Trade and 
Environment. The EU will continue to engage in this dialogue with other WTO Members in the future.  
2.46.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. (In rebuttal to the 
EU's a rgument that the Deforestation -Free Products Regulation does not lay down product 
characteristics or their related processes or production methods, and is therefore not a TBT 
measure): The United States disagrees with the EU's position regarding the TBT Ag reement's 
definition of technical regulation. The United States notes that operators will be required to exercise 
due diligence requirements prior to placing relevant products on the EU market, and it appears that 
these due diligence requirements will be u sed by the EU to determine those relevant requirements 
in the regulation are fulfilled. Specifically, Article 15 of the regulation describes how EU competent 
authorities will examine mandatory due diligence statements to determine that the relevant 
require ments in the regulation are fulfilled.  
2.1.3.4   Chile - Regulations on consumer information and advertising in relation to 
alcoholic beverages, G/TBT/N/CHL/625 , G/TBT/N/CHL/625/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/CHL/625/Add.2 , G/TBT/N/CHL/625/Add.3 , G/TBT/N/CHL/625/Ad d.4 
(ID 80811) 
2.47.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement. The delegation of Mexico 
refers to the Regulations on consumer information and advertising in relation to alcoholic beverages 
(Regulations rel ating to Articles 40 bis and 40 ter of Law No. 19.925), notified to the members of 
the TBT Committee in document G/TBT/N/CHL/625 . In this connection, the Government of Mexico 
stresses that it agrees that providing clear and precise information to in centivize informed consumer 
decision -making is important; however, some aspects of the Regulations could create an 
unnecessary obstacle to international trade in alcoholic beverages. Specifically, the delegation of 
Mexico would like to voice the following concerns and requests regarding the labelling requirements 
laid down in the Regulations. Article 3 on warning pictograms could contravene Article 2.2 of the 
TBT Agreement, as it imposes additional and unnecessary requirements, given that many Mexican 
alcoh olic beverages currently exported to Chile already bear warning pictograms that are recognized 
and used internationally.  
2.48.   Therefore, and with a view to avoiding consumer confusion and additional costs for producers 
due to labels solely for alcoholic bevera ges exported to Chile, it is requested that the Chilean 
Government continue to accept the warning pictograms and messages currently in use. Furthermore, 
Article 4 defines the minimum dimensions and proportions of the warning labels on packaging. These 
labelling regulations would mean that certain alcoholic beverages of Mexican origin would be unable 
to comply with the specifications under Article 4. In that regard, the delegation of Mexico would 
appreciate clarification as to whether the minimum dimensions and proportions required for the 
warning labels are mutually exclusive. In addition, Article 11 establishes energy value labelling 
requirements for alcoholic beverages, but fails to take into account the standard serving size of 
many distilled spirits. Thi s could create confusion among consumers concerning their energy intake. 
Mexico therefore requests the usual energy information for distilled spirits be allowed to be declared. 
Lastly, Article 12 lays down the provisions regarding energy value information on the labels. 
However, using a text box for energy information, together with the pictorial warnings, would take 
up most of the space on the label. We therefore request the Government of Chile reassess the font 
size for the energy information text box. Th e delegation of Mexico thanks the delegation of Chile for 
giving its consideration to this statement.  
 
11 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 808. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.49.   In response, the representative of Chile provided the following statement. The delegation of 
Chile appreciates the comments made by Mexico regarding the aforementioned Regulations. It 
should be noted that Decree No. 98 of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Security was published 
in the Offi cial Journal on 7 July 2023, approving the regulations of Articles 40 bis and 40 ter of Law 
No. 19.925, as amended by Law No. 21.363, published in August 2021. The Decree incorporates 
warnings on the negative health effects of alcohol into packaging, regul ates advertising and 
establishes requirements to include the calorie count on labels of alcoholic beverages marketed in 
Chile, whether produced domestically or imported from third markets. The Regulations were duly 
notified to the WTO Committee on Technica l Barriers to Trade on 9 March 2023, following which 
several comments and concerns were received from the members of this Committee. Chile has fully 
complied with the commitments of the WTO TBT Agreement in this case and has even made 
additional efforts to  give all members the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Regulations. On 10 May, additional time was granted to receive comments, as notified under 
Addendum 1. Subsequently, we replied to the comments, and the replies were notified under 
Addend um 2 on 18 July 2023. Following 75 days of international public consultation, members were 
informed of the publication of Decree No. 98 on 18 July under Addendum 3. Lastly, the Manual on 
Graphic Standards for Warning Messages and Energy Labelling on Alcoho lic Beverages was published 
under Addendum 4 on 8 November. Most of the suggestions and comments were incorporated into 
the Decree, and a staggered entry into force of the provisions was carried out, with a time frame 
ranging from 12 to 36 months from the publication of the Decree in the Official Journal. This led to 
the creation of regulations that strike a balance between complying with consumer rights on access 
to information on the health risks of potentially harmful alcohol consumption behaviours and 
ensuring the least possible impact on international trade. Nevertheless, the specific questions 
submitted by the delegation of Mexico in this Committee shall be duly referred to the Ministry of the 
Interior and Public Security, which is fully prepared to pr ovide further clarifications as required.  
2.1.3.5   Philippines - Implementing Guidelines of the Philippine Energy Labeling Program 
for Clothes Washing Machines (ID 80912) 
2.50.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. On 
23 October  2023, Korea submitted comments regarding the "Implementing Guidelines of the 
Philippine Energy Labeling Program for Clothes Washing Machines" (hereinafter Implementing 
Guidelines) through the TBT Enquiry Point and received a reply from the Philippines on 31 October. 
Korea thanks the Philippines for its quick and detailed response, which resolved some of our 
industry's concerns. Out of the five issues covered in the previous letters, there is one inquiry left 
to be further addressed, which Korea would like to communicate through this STC. Regarding the 
testing conditions for automatic clothes washing machines, Korea requests that the Philippines clarify 
whether the reference programme for reference washing machine can be decided by the 
manufacturer or there is a separate guidance under the regulation. If there is specific programme 
for the reference machine, Korea requests that the programme be identified from Annex E and F of 
PNS IEC 60456 for each washing machine type (e.g. Automatic/Manual washing machines, F ront 
loader, Top loader with built -in heater, Top loader without heater, etc.)  
2.51.   In response, the representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement. We would 
like to thank Korea for its interest on the implementing guidelines of the Philippi ne Energy Labelling 
Program for clothes washing machines. The Philippines would like to clarify that for automatic Clothes 
Washing Machines, the reference program is based on the manufacturer's instructions, which is the 
standard program set by the manufac turer consistent with the Specific Guidelines for the Conduct 
of Verification Testing (Section 1.5.3.1) in the Philippine Energy Labelling Program (PELP) 
Implementing Guidelines for Clothes Washing Machines. In cases where the manufacturer's 
instruction is  not available, the reference program to be used shall be based on the available program 
of the tested unit that is most suitable. This must also be aligned with the parameters specified in 
Annex E and F of the Philippine National Standard IEC 60456:2013, whichever may be applicable. 
In addition, please be informed that the Philippines Department of Energy is in the process of 
updating the Implementing Guidelines for Clothes Washing Machines. Comments from stakeholders 
will be taken into consideration.  
 
12 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 809. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 17 - 
 
  2.1.3.6   India - Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2023, G/TBT/N/IND/287  
(ID 81013) 
2.52.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia would like to 
thank India for its notification related to the Medical Textiles (Quality Contr ol) Order 2023 as 
G/TBT/N/IN D/287  on 3 July 2023 to the TBT WTO Committee. Referring to the notifications, the 
India Ministry of Textiles has issued six standards regulations on textiles export products, where the 
products must be certified accordi ng to Indian Standards and the manufacturer is required to 
undergo certification by the Indian Standards Bureau (BIS) under Foreign Manufacturer Certification 
(FCMS), before the product is allowed to enter the Indian market. Related to the implementation o f 
the regulation, Indonesia had sent enquiries seeking clarification and explanation on the legitimate 
objective of this Quality Control Order. However, India responded that this regulation has been 
enacted on 27 September 2023 and India has not provided a ny explanation regarding Indonesia's 
concerns. India also did not notify the addendum to the WTO TBT Committee Secretariat regarding 
the implementation of this Quality Control Order.  
2.53.   In this regard, we would like to seek further clarification on the follo wing matters: 
(i) Legitimate objective of the Quality Control Order. As we understand that the aim of this provision 
is to increase standard and quality of medical textiles in India, but the requirement of certification 
and the inclusion of Standard Mark t o the six products would be unnecessary obstacle to trade and 
increasing cost for the companies engaged in the international trade with India. (ii) Related to sample 
testing on Sanitary Napkin and Disposable baby diapers products, we seek possibility to ha ve the 
skin irritation testing to be carried out in Indonesia, considering to minimize the testing cost. 
(iii) How the process of determining the product certification body in terms of compliance with these 
standards. (iv) Regarding the audit process, plea se explain whether it should be done for every 
shipment product or one time audit that is valid for a certain period of time. Indonesia Ministry of 
Health (MOH) as regulator for those products, conduct only one time audit that is valid for five years 
as th e requirement for market authorization licence. (v) The production of Indonesia Sanitary 
Napkins and Disposable baby diapers from raw material to finish products, has been integrated to 
comply with the standards issued from MOH. In addition, the probabilit y of contact with human 
hands was very small so that the level of hygiene is guaranteed. If the sample testing is carried out 
by testing the cleanliness aspect whether it is not contaminated or not contaminated due to direct 
contact with humans, we assume that testing the cleanliness aspect is not needed. (vi) The transition 
time of the regulation is insufficient for producers to be able to meet the requirements set out in the 
QCOs. With a large number of regulated products, the need for physical testing, a nd the factory 
inspection requirements at production sites, we are concerned about the possibility of queues and 
backlogs of product certification applications coming into the BIS, which could slow down the 
certification process and hinder the export proce ss. In this regard, we request India to postpone the 
implementation of this QCO at least 12 months after promulgations. (vii) Indonesia suggest India 
open the option of international recognition for conformity assessment results and/or conformity 
assessmen t bodies (inspection bodies) from the country of origin to speed up the audit and 
certification process and also reduce the cost of certification. Indonesia also urges India to notify the 
stipulated technical regulations to the secretariat, in accordance w ith Article 2.9.2 of the TBT 
Agreement.  
2.54.   In response, the representative of India provided the following statement. BIS certification 
scheme is basically voluntary in nature. However, for a number of products compliance to Indian 
Standards is made compulsory by the Central Government under various considerations viz. public 
interest, p rotection of human, animal or plant health, safety of environment, prevention of unfair 
trade practices and national security. For such products, the Government of India directs mandatory 
use of Standard Mark under a Licence from BIS through issuance of Qu ality Control Orders (QCOs). 
The requirement of Biocompatibility Evaluation — Cytotoxicity, Irritation and Skin Sensitization is an 
optional requirement for disposable (non -reusable) sanitary napkins as per IS 5405:2019 and for 
reusable sanitary pad/sanita ry napkin/period panties as per IS 17514:2021. However, for Disposable 
Baby Diaper as per IS 17509: 2021 it is a mandatory requirement. These standards prescribe that 
the manufacture shall ensure that raw material used for manufacturing the final product a re safe for 
user based on its known toxicological characteristics at intended use and prescribe methods for 
detection of biocompatibility. The product specific guidelines (i.e. product manuals) issued by BIS 
for these products, which are available on BIS w ebsite www.bis.gov.in , specify that conformity of 
raw materials to the standard may be established through supplier's test certificate, test report of 
 
13 For previous statements follow the th read under ID 810. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 18 - 
 
  BIS recognized/empanelled lab or any other NABL accredited lab or through in house testing. Foreign 
Manufacturers can apply for BIS certification under BIS Foreign Manufacturers Certification Scheme 
(FMCS).  
2.55.   The process broadly involves submission of application by the manufacturing unit,  
examination of application and on -site factory audit by BIS Certification Officer during which 
assessment of the capability of the manufacturer to manufacture and test the product according to 
the Indian Standard is done, testing of the product as per the  standard is witnessed in the factory 
and sample(s) of the product are drawn for testing in BIS lab or BIS recognized/empanelled lab as 
per the Indian Standard. Decision for grant of certification is taken based on the application, factory 
audit and the la b test results. Details of BIS Foreign Manufacturers Certification Scheme (FMCS) are 
available on BIS website www.bis.gov.in . BIS certification is granted to the concerned manufacturing  
unit for one or two years initially and can be renewed subsequently for up to five years. The 
requirements of the concerned Indian Standards as follows, shall apply IS 5405:2019 – for 
disposable (non -reusable) sanitary napkins, IS 17514:2021 - for reusabl e sanitary pad/sanitary 
napkin/period panties, IS 17509:2021 – for Disposable Baby Diaper.  
2.56.   These standards can be accessed from BIS website www.bis.gov.in  or 
https://standardsbis.bsbedge.com/ . The Indian Standards are developed by technical committees 
that are representative of various stakeholders having interest in the relevant subject of 
standardization  under the scope of such committees through a process of consultation so that views 
of all are given due consideration and a consensus is evolved in formulating a standard. The 
stakeholders involved in national standardization can broadly be categorized as  industry, 
consumers/users, technologists (R&D and Scientific institutions, academia, individual subject 
experts etc.) and government departments/regulators. There is possibility of contamination of 
product due to raw material, storage, handling, transport ation, production environment, and 
packaging. Accordingly, hygiene testing requirements have been prescribed for sanitary pad and 
baby diaper to ensure the quality of product. The implementation timeline for the aforementioned 
QCO is as follows A) for Sani tary Napkins, Baby Diaper and Reusable sanitary pad sanitary napkin 
period panties. For Small & Micro Enterprises (SME) -1 October 2024, For Others - 1 April 2024. 
B) For Shoe covers, Dental bib/ Napkins and Pillow Covers – 7 April 2024. As regards the pro posal 
for consideration of international recognition for conformity assessment results as well as conformity 
assessment bodies, such provisions can be made only under the provisions of Government to 
Government Mutual Recognition agreement (MRA) with intere sted countries with the approval of 
Central Government.  
2.1.3.7   United States - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial and 
Industrial Pumps, G/TBT/N/USA/980/Rev.1/Add.1  (ID 81114) 
2.57.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. The US Department of Energy 
proposes that pumps that operate at 960 to 1440 rpm or are designed to operate with 6 -pole motors 
would be tested with a nominal speed of 1200 rpm. Cavitation during testing represents the result 
of the actual operation. Therefore, the test results are still valid. However, testing a 6 -pole motor or 
pump with a design speed between 960 -1440 rpm at a rated speed of 1200 rpm will significantly 
increase the testing burden and cost. Moreover, due to limit ed testing conditions, the test results 
are not stable, and the test results obtained from the deceleration experiment can also be converted 
to a rated speed of 1200 rpm by pump affinity laws. According to Article 2.2 of the WTO/TBT  
Agreement, "Members shall ensure  that the formulation, adoption, or implementation of technical 
regulations do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade in purpose or effect" and 
consider reducing unnecessary testing costs and improving the stability of test results, China 
suggests that the US adopt commonly used methods in the motor testing industry and add the 
option of a speed reduction test for manufacturers to choose from.  
2.58.   In response, the representative of the United States  provided the following statement. As we 
discussed in our bilateral meeting with China this morning, we are hearing these comments for the 
first time so it is hard to respond substantively when we are getting them at the last minute, but 
the United States appreciates the comments submitted by China on  the measure on 7 June 2022.  
The United States took into account all comments received during the open comment period and 
 
14 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 811. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 19 - 
 
  responded to each substantive comment when we issued the final rule. Those replies are publicly 
available at Federal Register, Volume  88 Issue 57 (Friday, 24 March 2023) (govinfo.gov)  
2.1.3.8   European Union - Mandatory Batch Testing of Pharmaceutical Products (ID 81215) 
2.59.   The representative of India provided the following statement. India is concerned about 
present EU norms that require analytica l testing of each and every batch of the imported 
consignment at the port of destination and only after the confirmation of satisfactory results the 
consignment is allowed to reach the market. This procedure delays the product reaching the market 
by 2-3 months. Other developed countries allow the consignments based on company's certification. 
It has been repeatedly suggested that analytical testing could be conducted randomly and self -
certification of analysis by the exporter could be accepted similar to wh at is done in other countries 
so as to avoid dual testing of each medicinal/pharma consignment.  
2.60.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. At 
the outset, the EU would like to inform Members that the measure that  India is raising has been in 
place for over 20 years as the Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use has been 
adopted in November 2002. Article  51 para 1. point b) of this Directive provides that member States 
shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the qualified person is responsible for securing 
that each production batch has undergone, in a member State, a full qualitative analysis,  a 
quantitative analysis of at least all the active substances and all the other tests or checks necessary 
to ensure the quality of medicinal products, in accordance with the requirements of the marketing 
authorization. This means that each batch of produc ts imported from outside the EU has to be 
re-tested in the EU for obvious public health reasons and that this cannot be replaced by the 
acceptance of batch testing certificate issued in India and based on tests performed in India. To 
accept batch testing c ertificates without re -testing the products in the EU, the Commission would 
first need to evaluate and confirm that India's regulatory framework applicable to medicines and 
their active substances exported to the EU, as well as the respective control and e nforcement 
activities, ensure a level of protection of public health equivalent to that of the EU. That is not the 
case as currently there is regrettably no technical cooperation on the quality of medicines with India. 
This cooperation would be the pre -requisite for such an evaluation and, in a distant future, a possible 
mutual recognition of each other's regulatory framework and the respective control and enforcement 
activities applicable to medicines, which could ultimately lead to the recognition of batc h testing 
certificates.  
2.1.3.9   Mozambique - Regulation on standardization and conformity assessment, decree 
No. 8/2022 of 14.03.2022 ( G/TBT/N/MOZ/17 ) and Conformity assessment procedure of 
imported products for mandatory control during customs clearance of 16.08.23 (not 
notified) and Ministerial Diploma No. 98/2023 establishing taxes on products to be 
exported to Mozambique of 14.07.2023 (not notified ), G/TBT/N/MOZ/17  (ID 81316) 
2.61.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The Decree 
No. 8/2022 of March 14th that defines the framework for standardisation and conformity assessment 
was notified by Mozambique under G/TBT/N/MOZ/17 . This decree is lying down the general 
framework, and we did not have specific comments at the time. Several subsequent measures, 
recently adopted, further detail the way this decree will be implemented. There is the Conformity 
Assessment P rocedure of Imported Products for Mandatory Control during Customs Clearance, dated 
16 August 2023. This one details the procedure for conformity assessment for imported products. 
In our view this should have been notified to the WTO, as a standalone notif ication or as an 
addendum to the earlier notification, so that Members would have had the possibility to comment. 
Furthermore, there is the Ministerial Diploma No. 98/2023: it establishes taxes and dates from 
14 July 2023. It is a further clarification of the two measures already mentioned and it should also 
have been notified. We understand the entry into force took already place on 1 November 2023. It 
seems that the new conformity assessment program has replaced a pre -shipment inspection. A 
certificate of  conformity can only be issued by one company (Intertek) and must occur prior to 
shipment for goods to be cleared by Customs at Mozambican Ports and Borders. For this certificate, 
the exporter needs to pay a percentage -based fee per consignment. This new s ystem seems to be 
largely equivalent to the earlier one and is very cumbersome for our industry. We see different 
 
15 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 812. 
16 For previous statemen ts follow the thread under ID 813. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 20 - 
 
  problems with these three measures that are all linked. Mozambique should have notified the whole 
package to the TBT Committee to provide for a proper consultation. Then there is a different 
treatment foreseen for domestic and imported products. We would like to get additional information 
about how the same domestic products are being treated, both concerning conformity assessment 
procedures and  the related fees.  
2.62.   The TBT Agreement (Article 5.1) provides that conformity assessment procedures should be 
prepared, adopted and applied so as to grant access to suppliers of like products originating in other 
Members under conditions no less favourable than those accorded to suppliers of like products of 
national origin, in a comparable situation. We furthermore wonder why the fees are ad valorem 
based. Why would the value of the imports be a problem? Such a fee must be related to the service 
rendered no t to the value of the imported products. The conformity assessment procedures for the 
respective products create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade as the procedures seem 
more strict than necessary to give Mozambique adequate confidence that pr oducts conform with the 
requirements set out in technical regulations. In this respect some aspects of the procedures need 
to be clarified, like whether there is any possibility for importers to avoid repeating the conformity 
assessment procedure for any s hipment to Mozambique, which seems to be unnecessarily 
burdensome in particular for less risky products. Mozambique should accept EU certificates that are 
based on the same international and EU standards and done by ILAC laboratories as many countries 
are doing world -wide. We would be grateful if Mozambique could reply to our questions and notify 
the two outstanding measures to WTO.  
2.63.   In response, the representative of Mozambique  provided the following statement. My 
delegation would like to thank the EU for r aising this issue. In 2022, the Mozambican government 
approved Decree no. 8/2022, of 14 March, which establishes the Conformity Assessment Programme 
(CAP) for products imported into Mozambique to guarantee compliance with the technical standards 
and regula tions in force in the country. The fees to be applied in the implementation of the CAP were 
approved by Diploma Ministerial n.98/2023 of 14 July. Mandatory conformity assessment begins on 
1 November 2023 for the products on the list -ANNEX 2, which is also  available on the National 
Institute for Standardisation and Quality (INNOQ) website. The Decree n. 8/2022 of 14 March, has 
been notified to the World Trade Organization and has the code G/TBT/N/MOZ/17 , 1 June 2022 and 
is also available only in Portu guese version on the INNOQ, IP website. Unless otherwise indicated, 
the TBT Agreement states that technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures and 
technical standards must be notified. However, with regard to Diploma Ministerial no. 98/2023, of 
14 July, which approves the fees to be charged for the conformity assessment programme for 
products imported into Mozambique, this document has not been notified to the WTO for the reasons 
mentioned above, but it is available on the INNOQ, IP website.  
2.64.   Regarding to the fees: The ARTICLE 2 (Incidence), the Diploma Ministerial n.98/ 2023, of 
14 July, determine: The fees for CAP implementation services shall be charged to exporters in the 
country of origin of the products and are set out in Annexes I and II to  this Ministerial Diploma, as 
follows. Category A: Occasional exporters and/or used products - % Ad Valorum (As per FOB value) 
a. 0.50%, Minimum Fee (USD) b. 250,00, Maximum fee (USD) c. 2750,00. Category B: Frequent 
exporters – a. 0.45% b. 250 Usd c. 2.75 0 usd. Category C: Exporter/Manufacturer with high 
frequency volumes – a. 0.25% b. 250 Usd c. 2.750 Usd. Category D: Verification in Mozambique of 
a product that does not have a certificate of conformity – a. 0.80% b. 500 Usd c. 5.000 Usd.  
2.1.3.10   Ecuador - Propos al for a Regulation on the labelling of processed and packaged 
foods for human consumption (ID 81417) 
2.65.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement. The delegation of Mexico 
refers to the Republic of Ecuador's Proposal for a Regulation on the labelling of processed and 
packaged foods for human consumption. In this connection, the Government of Mexico stresses that 
it agrees that providing clear and precise information to incentivize informed consumer decision -
making is important; however, it is necessary to ensure that technical regulations comply with the 
principles of the WTO TBT Agreement on as wide a basis as possi ble. In this regard, the delegation 
of Mexico would like to voice the following concerns and requests. Article 3 of the Regulation includes 
a general definition of alcoholic beverages, but this definition does not cover fermented or prepared 
alcoholic beve rages. We believe it is important to include a more robust definition that also covers 
fermented or prepared alcoholic beverages, to provide greater certainty about the application of the 
 
17 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 814. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Regulation, to establish a level playing field for all alcoholic bev erages and not to be more trade -
restrictive than necessary, in accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Chapter VI of the 
Regulation lays down the alcoholic beverage labelling provisions. It is important that warning 
symbols can be included anywhe re on the label and not necessarily on the front -of-pack label, which 
would make it easier to bring the labels into line with the various provisions of other countries and 
with the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the Organisation for E conomic 
Co-operation and Development, in accordance with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. Lastly, the 
Government of Ecuador is requested to notify this draft Regulation to the WTO TBT Committee, in 
accordance with the commitment to transparency, pursuant to Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement, 
so that comments on the Regulation may be submitted in writing. The delegation of Mexico thanks 
the delegation of Ecuador for giving its consideration to this statement.  
2.66.   In response, the representative of Ecuador  provided the following statement. Ecuador wishes 
to report that, in March  2023, the Inter -Ministerial Committee on Quality adopted the road map 
submitted by the Ministry of Public Health of Ecuador, which is overseeing the preparation of the 
"Draft Regulation on the labelling of processed and packaged foods for human consumption". The 
road map sets out the transparency obligations assumed by Ecuador as a Member of the World Trade 
Organization and as part of its trade agreements. In this regard, the road map ado pted by the 
Committee covers:  Internal consultation:  This is for the regulatory improvement process, relating 
to the publication of the draft regulation and the summary of the regulatory impact analysis on the 
Ecuadorian Standardization Service (INEN) webs ite for 20 days to receive technical suggestions and 
comments from regulated domestic entities, the integrated public health network, consumers and 
civil society, among others. The internal consultation process was announced on 26  August  2023 to 
this end.  Circulation for internal consultation:  The document was shared with regulated domestic 
entities, the integrated public health network, consumers and civil society, among others. The 
comment period ran from 4 to 25  September  2023. At the request of regulate d domestic entities, 
the internal public consultation period has now been extended to 23  October  2023, as reflected on 
the INEN website.  External consultation:  Once the comments received as part of the internal 
consultation have been reviewed, the notification will be submitted through the WTO ePing system 
pursuant to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and a 60 -day comment period will be 
accorded. The recommendation contained in document G/TBT/35/Rev.1 will be taken into 
consideration for this purpose.  
2.67.   Formal adoption process for the draft technical regulation:  A reasonable interval will be 
allowed between the publication of technical regulations and th eir entry into force, pursuant to the 
TBT Agreement.  Final notification:  The final version of the technical regulation will be notified through 
the WTO ePing system.  The Ministry of Public Health has now requested circulation of the draft 
regulation. At pr esent, comments received from various public and private sectors are gradually 
being analysed in order to proceed with the notification of the draft regulation in accordance with 
the TBT Agreement, so that stakeholders can submit written comments through t he WTO TBT 
Enquiry Point once Ecuador has notified the draft to the WTO.  Lastly, it is important to mention that 
a period of more than six months has been established for the draft regulation's entry into force to 
allow stakeholders reasonable time to impl ement it.  
2.1.3.11   Thailand - Notification of the Committee on Labels, entitled Determination of 
Products Containing Lasers as Label -Controlled Products; Draft Notification of the 
Committee on Labels, entitled Determination of Personal Computer and Computer Device 
as Label -Controlled Goods, G/TBT/N/THA/667 , G/TBT/N/THA/684 , 
G/TBT/N/THA/684/Add.1  (ID 81518) 
2.68.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
thanks Thailand for providing the opp ortunity for stakeholders to comment on "Determination of 
Products Containing Lasers as Label ‐Controlled Products" ( G/TBT/N/THA/667 ) and "Determination 
of Personal Computer and Computer Device as Label -Controlled Goods" ( G/TBT/N/THA/684 ). U.S. 
industry submitted comments on G/TBT/N/THA/667  in September 2022 and on G/TBT/N/THA/684  
in December 2022. We understand that the final version of these two notifications were published 
in the Royal Gazette recently. However, we remain concerned that the proposed labelling 
requirements may have the effect of creating unne cessary obstacles to international trade. We would 
welcome an update from Thailand regarding what steps Thailand has taken to consider stakeholder 
 
18 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 815. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 22 - 
 
  comments on the two notifications. The previous concerns we flagged for Thailand largely pertained 
to the fai lure to reference two widely accepted international standards.  
2.69.   First, the "Determination of Products Containing Lasers as Label -Controlled Products" had an 
unclear scope and did not consider the risk of the lasers or differentiate their categories. US ind ustry 
requested that Thailand consider referencing IEC 60825 -1:2014, a widely accepted international 
standard, to address the safety of different laser products and provide appropriate safety labelling. 
Can Thailand clarify if it took this comment into con sideration in the final? We have also heard 
reports that the final measure now requires labels to indicate the product's "date of expiry" or "best 
before" date, which was reportedly not in the draft version of the measure. It is unclear to us how 
a date of  expiry is relevant within the context of ICT equipment. We request that Thailand explain 
the legitimate regulatory objective it is attempting to fulfill with this requirement.  
2.70.   Second, US industry is concerned that the "Determination of Personal Computer and 
Computer Device as Label Controlled Goods" also does not align with relevant international 
standards. In this regard, US industry notes the benefits of Thailand aligning classifications, safety 
warnings, and documentation requirements with internationa l safety standard IEC 62368 -1:2023 
and considering adoption of voluntary consumer information for some content. US industry 
encourages the acceptance of e -labelling as a voluntary option, due to the amount of information 
requested and the limited space for  physical labels. We welcome an update on how Thailand 
considered these comments in the final regulation.  
2.71.   Finally, particularly in light of these concerns, we also request that Thailand consider 
extending the implementation period to a minimum of one year  to allow a reasonable interval 
between the publication of the regulations and their entry into force. Manufacturers need sufficient 
time to revise their labelling to comply with these new requirements. While the regulations provide 
120 days for implementa tion, according to US industry, a minimum of one year is needed to allow 
a reasonable interval for manufacturers to adapt their global supply chain of products or methods of 
production in scope to the new requirements. We thank you for your consideration o f this matter. 
We greatly appreciate the information we've received from Thailand to date, and remain open to 
continuing a bilateral dialogue with Thailand to address these concerns.  
2.72.   In response, the representative of Thailand  provided the following statem ent. Thailand would 
like to thank the United States for their comments and statement. As we have not received any 
information regarding these specific concerns from the United States in advance, we would 
appreciate it if the written statement is provided. We, therefore, will refer the concerns to the 
competent authority in capital and respond in due course via your enquiry point. Thailand also 
welcomes further bilateral dialogue with the United States to address the concerns raised.  
2.1.4   Previously raised concer ns 
2.1.4.1   Mexico - Conformity Assessment Procedure under Mexican Official Standard NOM -
223-SCFI/SAGARPA - 2018, "Cheese Names, Specifications, Commercial Information, and 
Test Methods," published on 31 January 2019, G/TBT/N/MEX/465 , 
G/TBT/N/MEX/465/Rev.1  (ID 67819) 
2.73.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
submitted comments on G/TBT/N/MEX/465/Rev.1  on 3 May 2022, and has not received a response. 
The United States remain s concerned about the scope and implementation of the measure. Could 
Mexico provide a timeline for when it will respond to WTO Members' comments? Please provide an 
update on the status of this measure and an estimated timeframe of when the revised measure will 
be notified to the WTO. In November 2022, Mexico shared that the measure was in the final stage 
of review by Mexico's Ministry of Economy legal team. The United States reiterates its request that 
Mexico consider allowing fatty acid analysis to be volu ntary rather than mandatory. Currently, there 
are no internationally well -accepted biomarkers to differentiate milk fat from all vegetable fat, and 
there are no relevant internationally accepted testing methods available for this type of analysis.  
2.74.   The Uni ted States is concerned this measure may conflict with the ongoing redrafting of the 
corresponding cheese standard. How will Mexico harmonize the 2019 update to the NOM -223 cheese 
 
19 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 678. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 23 - 
 
  standard, with the NOM -223 cheese CAP versions developed through 2020 –2021, and an expected 
update to the NOM -223 cheese standard? Once finalized, will implementation of the measure move 
forward based on Mexico's Quality Infrastructure Law or the law it replaced, the Federal Law on 
Metrology and Standardization? We request that Me xico provide an outline of the different roles that 
each Ministry will play in the monitoring, compliance, and verification activities listed in the draft 
measure. We continue to have several significant concerns and questions about this measure's scope 
and implementation and request that Mexico indefinitely delay implementation or implement no 
earlier than 1 November 2024.  
2.75.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia would like to 
reiterate its concerns stated at previous TBT  Committee meetings that Mexico's measure notified as 
G/TBT/N/MEX/465  and associated revision appears discriminatory and more trade restrictive than 
necessary. Australia recognizes the original objectives of the proposed measures and welcomes the 
review of the procedure considering Mexico's international commitments. Australia appreciates that 
Mexico's competent authorities are still in the process of analysing the comments received with 
respect to this measure. Australia kindly asks Mexico to advis e on expected timeline to answer these 
important questions. We look forward to receiving Mexico's reply to our comments on its revised 
notification and an update for the release date of the new version of the procedure for public 
consultation.  
2.76.   The represen tative of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand welcomes 
the opportunity to again speak in support of this specific trade concern raised by the United States. 
New Zealand considers that the conformity assessment procedures that Mexico h as set out for 
cheese under NOM -223 are more trade restrictive than necessary, with some aspects of the 
conformity assessment procedure creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade and likely to 
cause difficulties for New Zealand exporters. We sup port the request for Mexico to consider less 
trade -restrictive alternatives to the measures. We look forward to receiving a response from Mexico 
to the concerns raised, and an update on the status of any revised version of the Conformity 
Assessment Procedu re. 
2.77.   In response, the representative of Mexico  provided the following statement. The Government 
of Mexico wishes to thank the United States, Australia and New Zealand for their statements and 
reiterates that the authorities of the Ministry of Economic Affai rs and the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Rural Development are currently at the stage of reviewing the 164 comments received from domestic 
and foreign stakeholders during the consultation period. The Government of Mexico will report its 
results to the delega tions concerned and all WTO Members once this revision has been concluded. 
It is also vital to reiterate that this process is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the 
WTO TBT Agreement, as well as the agreements related to the FTAs to which Mex ico is party.  
2.1.4.2   European Union - Chemical strategy for sustainability (implementation of the 
European Green Deal) (ID 69020) 
2.78.   The representative of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement. We are 
requesting to incorporate into minutes our inte rvention in its entirety made over previous Committee 
meeting on this item as our concern hasn't been addressed by the European Union. Once again, it 
is worrisome that the EU link fulfilment of its transparency commitments with the reasons not related 
to the WTO. Transparency is the important pillar of this organization which has been acknowledged 
by the EU on multiple occasions. It is unfortunate that the EU's actions run counter its words.  
2.79.   Statement from June 2023 meeting, in full.21 The Russian Federation would like to reiterate 
its concern on the European chemical strategy for sustainability. In December 2022, the European 
commission published the Recommendation for safe and sustainable chemicals, which contains 
classification of ha zardous properties and their influence on human health and environment. 
However, the classification is based upon the REACH Regulation which lacks of laboratory and 
epidemiological data or the scientific justification. The EU keeps imposing unilateral trad e restrictions 
under the umbrella of European green deal despite the rules of the WTO. None of the questions that 
have been asked in the Committee since June 2021 on that strategy have been answered. We urge 
the EU to provide responses on the questions rai sed during the previous TBT Committee meetings. 
Moreover, it is worrisome that the EU link fulfilment of its transparency commitments with the 
 
20 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 690. 
21 G/TBT/M/90 , para. 3.451.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 24 - 
 
  reasons not related to the WTO as they have been refusing to engage on the issue. Transparency is 
the important p illar of this organization. The EU acknowledged its importance on multiple occasions. 
It is unfortunate that the EU's actions run counter to its words.  
2.1.4.3   Canada - Proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022, 
G/TBT/N/CAN/673  (ID 75322) 
2.80.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. Following 
Canada's notification on 18 May 2022 as G/TBT/N/CAN/673 , Korea submitted comments to Canada 
regarding the "Proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substance s Regulations" in July 2022 and also 
raised STCs in the previous Committee meetings of March and June 2023, requesting to postpone 
and reconsider the regulation. While Korea appreciates Canada's responses to our comments, 
relevant Korean industries remain concerned about the proposed restriction of DBDPE, so Korea 
would like to reiterate those concerns. DBDPE, known for its outstanding and cost -effective 
flame -retardant features, is used as an intermediate material in various industrial sectors such as in 
the manufacture of electrical and electronic products, automobiles, construction equipment vehicles, 
agricultural machinery, etc, replacing the once commonly used but now restricted decaBDE. Korea 
supports Canada's endeavours to protect the environment and its policy initiatives aimed at realizing 
such efforts. Nevertheless, if the restriction on DBDPE is enforced without taking into account the 
availability of its alternatives, there are concerns that such measures would not only be more trade -
restrictive t han necessary but also put human safety at risk. Korea acknowledges that the proposed 
regulations provide temporary exemptions for electrical and electronic products, vehicle parts and 
pellets or flakes used in manufacturing wires and cables. Nevertheless,  if no adequate alternatives 
were found by the end of the exemption period, consumer safety risks would increase significantly 
due to the absence of flame -retardants or the low flame -retardant quality in products.  
2.81.   Korea would like to note in this regard t hat several Korean companies have tested a range of 
non-bromine flame retardants in efforts to develop alternatives to DBDPE. However, they have 
encountered challenges such as reduced efficiency in the manufacturing process and product quality 
deterioratio n (including surface whitening, water spots, ammonia odour, corrosion, etc). As of now, 
there seems no viable replacement for DBDPE. Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) have not imposed risk man agement measures 
on DBDPE. Neither the Stockholm Convention nor the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 
(GLWQA) has listed DBDPE as a prohibited substance. Consequently, Canada is the only country to 
adopt a restriction on DBDPE, one that is overly stringe nt compared with prevailing international 
standards. Therefore, Korea requests that Canada conduct a comprehensive evaluation of product 
safety and carefully assess the impact on the relevant industries before enforcing the DBDPE 
restriction. Korea also re commends Canada postpone the regulation indefinitely, even beyond the 
temporary exemption periods, until alternative flame retarding materials (or methods) matching 
DBDPE in terms of cost and performance are developed for manufacturers' use.  
2.82.   The representa tive of China  provided the following statement. China suggests suspending the 
prohibition of DBDPE for the following reasons . Firstly, the proposed regulation does not contribute 
to fulfilling a legitimate objective. The scientific evidence on DBDPE shows that DBDPE is essentially 
unreactive and will not form, even under photolysis, potentially toxic substances. DBDPE as such is 
of low toxicity to mammals and aquatic organisms. The release of DBDPE into the environment does 
not lead to exposure to persisten t and bio -accumulative products. The assumption to prohibit DBDPE 
is that it would, once exposed to the environment, transform into toxic and bio -accumulative 
products is scientifically untenable. The prohibition of DBDPE and of products containing DBDPE 
does, therefore, not contribute to such a legitimate objective as protecting the Canadian 
environment or the Arctic ecosystem and its indigenous peoples. Secondly, the technology to replace 
DBDPE is not well -proven and it takes quite a long time to finish s uch a replacement. Also, if product 
manufacturers are forced to use alternatives not well proven, it will undermine the fireproof 
performance of the products and jeopardize consumers' lives and property. Thirdly, DBDPE is 
different from DecaBDE. A major re ason why DBDPE is listed as a hazardous substance is that 
DecaBDE is used as a surrogate for DBDPE in hazardous assessment, and this is problematic. US 
National Academies of Sciences (NAS) released a study report in 2019, holding that OFRs used in 
consumer  products cannot be made a hazardous assessment as a single group; instead, they should 
be sorted into 14 subgroups based on chemical structure, physicochemical properties, and predicted 
biologic activity. It is noteworthy that in the study, NAS grouped DB DPE and DecaBDE into separate 
 
22 For previous  statements follow the thread under ID 753. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 25 - 
 
  subclasses. Fourthly, currently there is no precedent in the world to control DBDPE particularly. The 
evaluation on DBDPE is pending under EU REACH. It is better to have a further assessment on 
DBDPE, not only a hazardous asse ssment but also an assessment of replacement feasibility and 
industry impacts.  
2.83.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan appreciates Canada's 
comments at the last TBT Committee meeting in June that the final regulation is to be pu blished in 
summer 2024, that "the proposed Regulations provide time -limited exemptions for parts and 
products of certain industrial sectors, such as the automotive sector and electronic and electrical 
equipment", and that Canada thinks alternatives includi ng non -chemical -based ones can be used. 
Also, Japan recognizes that the same description regarding the timing of publication of the final 
regulation is written in the TBT notification ( G/TBT/N/CAN/673/Add.1 ) published on 11 August 2023. 
However, Japan continues to have concerns regarding the proposed DBDPE restriction in the draft 
revision of the Regulations, especially its impact on industries and citizens' lives in Canada. DBDPE 
is widely used in various categories such as EEE, automobi les, aircraft, medical equipment, industrial 
equipment, social infrastructure equipment, agricultural machinery, industrial machinery, 
construction machinery and industrial vehicles as an alternative for decaBDE, which is a brominated 
flame retardant that has been internationally prohibited. DBDPE has not been restricted by 
international conventions or in other countries or regions.  
2.84.   Although Canada commented that alternatives including non -chemical -based ones can be 
used, currently there is no alternative flame retardant available, including a non -chemical -based 
one, which is equivalent to DBDPE in many applications. Therefore, the period of exemption proposed 
in May 2022 is not sufficient for developing alternatives to DBDPE and completing substitution 
through the entire supply chain. Accordingly, it is highly likely to have significant and serious effects 
on the trade and distribution in Canada of the various types of equipment noted above. In particular, 
medical equipment and industrial equipment are impo rtant not only for supporting Canadian 
industries and infrastructure but also for the impact they have on citizens' lives in Canada. Therefore, 
we reiterate our request for setting a sufficient grace period for the examination and introduction of 
DBDPE alt ernatives through conducting additional stakeholder consultations and deliberate 
consideration. Canada concluded that DBDPE has a risk to cause adverse effect on the environment 
and indicates contribution to the protection of the Canadian environment and w ildlife as the main 
objectives of DBDPE restrictions.  
2.85.   We understand the objectives of the regulations, however, according to Japanese industries, 
DBDPE contained in products is rarely released to the environment during its intended use and poses 
a very lo w risk of harmful effects on humans and the environment, including wildlife. Further, the 
screening assessment published by Environment and Climate Change Canada elaborates this as 
follows: "OECD (2009) identifies potential volatility to atmosphere from se rvice life for generic OFRs 
in plastics, estimated at 0.05% over lifetime for indoor or outdoor use; however, this generic value 
may be an overestimate for a very low volatility OFR like DBDPE. Environmental release of the 
substance from plastic polymers v ia leaching is considered possible, albeit low. The potential release 
of OFRs from plastics during service life to water is estimated at 0.05% over lifetime if the substance 
is for indoor use or 0.16% over service life for outdoor use (OECD 2009). The larg e majority of 
DBDPE containing products would be enclosed or used for indoor use; the release rate of 0.05% is 
therefore most applicable and may likely be an overestimate since contact with water is not 
expected." Considering the information mentioned abov e, we would appreciate if Canada would 
indicate its rationale that the scope of the Regulations includes DBDPE contained in products. Based 
on the above, in order to ensure that the draft revision of the Regulations would not be more trade 
restrictive than  necessary to achieve its legitimate objectives, Japan would like to request the 
following points to Canada: 1) To conduct a more thorough risk assessment for the effects of DBDPE 
contained in articles on human health and the environment, 2) to take into a ccount consistency with 
risk assessment results from other countries and regions, and 3) to re -examine the necessity of 
restrictions on DBDPE in articles and a grace period for such through conducting a practical feasibility 
study on alternatives to DBDPE and additional stakeholder consultations.  
2.86.   In response, the representative of Canada  provided the following statement. We thank 
Members for their comments. Canada would like to reaffirm that since the Chemicals Management 
Plan (CMP) was launched in 2006, Ca nada has taken a robust approach to risk assessment to 
determine whether a substance presents or may present a risk to the environment or to human 
health. Decisions are based on a weight -of-evidence approach and precaution to determine the 
potential risk p osed by a substance. As previously stated, all information received by the Government G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 26 - 
 
  of Canada, including studies on transformation for DBDPE, have been carefully evaluated and 
considered as part of the weight of evidence. The screening assessment conside red analogue 
evidence for certain characteristics of DBDPE for which limited information was available. Selection 
of analogues was based on scientific judgement and followed the internationally -recognized 
Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals, Second Edition ,  published by the Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development (OECD). A number of comments were received on the proposed 
DBPDE provisions, during the 75 -day comment period. Comments and concerns from all 
stakeholders are being considered in the development of the final regulations, expected to be 
published in summer of 2024 at the earliest, as was communicated in the Canadian TBT notification 
G/TBT/N/CAN/673/Add.1  on 10 August 2023. A Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS)  will 
be published with the final Regulations and will include a summary of the comments received, along 
with how they were considered in the development of the final Regulations.  
2.87.   In terms of international action, Canada understands that other Members hav e assessed or 
are currently assessing DBDPE, and have signalled prioritization in the development of risk 
management measures, including restrictions. Canada does not specify alternative flame retardant 
substances for industry in the proposed measure. It i s contingent upon industry to identify and 
transition to appropriate alternatives. Flame retardants such as DBDPE are generally used to meet 
performance -based flammability requirements. These performance -based requirements do not 
specify which chemical fla me retardants need to be used; rather they may require a product or 
component to pass a laboratory test such as a cigarette smoulder or open flame ignition test 
(ASTM  2014). Using chemical flame retardants such as DBDPE in their products is one means 
throu gh which companies can achieve flammability requirements for their products. Alternate 
substances, as well as non -chemical -based alternatives, may also be used to replace the use of 
DBDPE as a flame retardant in various applications. We remain open to disc uss the Members 
concerns bilaterally.  
2.1.4.4   China - Recommended National Standard (GB/T) for Office Devices (Information 
security technology – Security specification for office devices) (ID 76123) 
2.88.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Jap an understands that this 
draft national standard was recently subject to public comment procedures to seek outside opinions. 
Regarding this draft national standard, Japan has expressed concerns in various committees, 
including WTO/TBT  Committee, that the provisions requiring the development and production of 
multifunction devices and printers within China may violate WTO agreements, including Article 2.1, 
Article 2.2, and Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement and the China Accession Proto col. It is noted that 
the current draft national standard does not include such provisions. Although we understand that 
discussions and procedures will proceed toward the establishment of this national standard, we 
continue to request that it not include c ontent which discriminates between domestic and foreign 
countries and content which could lead to de facto requests for technology transfer. In this regard, 
the provisions of this draft national standard still pose concerns about leakage of trade secrets a nd 
technology depending on the content of information supplied by providers of office equipment for 
security testing of such equipment. For example, this draft national standard requires the provision 
of materials related to the supply chain, materials rel ated to third -party technology, and materials 
related to the manufacturing processes of office equipment, but these materials may include 
information related to trade secrets and sensitive technologies. This may violate Article 5.1.2 of the 
TBT Agreement. We request that the design and operation of security tests including these points 
be consistent with international agreements which China has concluded, including the WTO 
Agreement. Finally, Japan submitted opinions regarding this draft national standard b ased on the 
public comment procedure, and we would like to ask China to consider the content of those opinions.  
2.89.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement. The Philippines shares 
the concerns of Japan on China's Recommended Nati onal Standard for Office Devices. We would like 
to restate our previous concerns that complying with China's new regulations on the security and 
protection of critical information infrastructure presents an additional challenge for Philippine 
exporters. We  again request China to notify the draft measure and to provide information on the 
dates for the submission of comments.  
2.90.   In response, the representative of China  provided the following statement. From 25 August 
to 24 October 2023, the Recommended National Standard Information Security Technology —
 
23 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 761. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Security specification for office devices was publicly solicited for comments on the websites of SAC 
and TC260. 234 comments were received, mainly from the Japanese Embassy in China, Epson, Fuji, 
Toshiba, Canon, etc . The opinions mainly involve the adjustment of supply chain security 
management requirements and the refinement of evaluation methods. Currently, the editor team is 
studying and handling them. As far as we know, the current document does not involve the 
requirements for critical information infrastructure operators and office equipment components to 
be developed and produced in China. We will keep following this standard.  
2.1.4.5   United States - Chapter 173 -337 of WAC, safer products restriction and reporting, 
G/TBT/N/USA/1958  (ID 78724) 
2.91.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. China is pleased to note that 
the new rule released by Washington State Department of Ecology on 31 May 2023 has adopted the 
suggestions of Members. However, C hina notes that the new rule still restricts the use of intentionally 
added organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs) in some external enclosures for indoor EEE products 
and implements a new reporting requirement for OFRs used in casings and enclosures for som e 
outdoor EEE products. Firstly, China suggests the US should not control OFRs as a family. US should 
specify which OFR subgroup or which specific OFR to be restricted based on scientific assessment 
not only in hazard but also in the technical feasibility of alternatives as well as impacts on the 
industry. There are a total of over 100 types of OFRs, and no more than 10 types are restricted 
currently. US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released a study 
report in 2019, point ing out that OFRs used in consumer products cannot be made a hazardous 
assessment as a single group; instead, they should be sorted into 14 subgroups based on chemical 
structure, physicochemical properties, and predicted biologic activity, and then they sh ould be 
assessed not only in hazard but also in the technical feasibility of alternatives as well as impacts on 
the industry. Secondly, China suggests US should postpone the implementation of OFR restriction 
and reporting for one year based on the current timeline in the new rule. It usually takes a circle of 
two or three years to complete the replacement of a flame retardant from material formulation 
development to downstream users' confirmation of the market's stability feedback. If product 
manufacturers are forced to use alternatives not well proven, it will undermine the fireproof 
performance of the products and jeopardize consumers' lives and property. Currently, the earliest 
implementation of OFRs restriction will take place on 1 January 2025, only 1.5  years away from 
1 July 2023, the effective time of the new rule.  
2.92.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Regarding the restrictions on 
organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs) in plastic external enclosures of consumer electrical and 
electronic equipment (EEE) (hereinafter referred to as "OFR restrictions") for an implementation 
program (known as "Safer Products for Washington") of Chapter 70 A. 350 RCW, US -State of 
Washington Law, Japan appreciates the comments of the US Government at t he last WTO/TBT  
Committee meeting in June that the final rule was published and posted on TBT notification 
(G/TBT/USA/1958/Add.1 ) on 31 May 2023, and that the final regulatory analysis and related 
information were provided on the website for the p rogram. Japan's industrial associations submitted 
their comments to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DoE) during the three rounds of 
public comment periods, and also to the TBT notification sent in January 2023. The Japanese 
Government continued  to express its concerns at the last Committee meeting and would like to 
express its concerns again taking into account the final regulation.  
2.93.   We appreciate that the final regulation on the OFR restrictions limits the scope of prohibition 
effective from Ja nuary 2025 to TVs and displays with a screen area larger than 100 square 
centimeters or 15.5 square inches, and the effective dates for other products were postponed by 
one year. However, the final regulation still prohibits all OFRs contained in plastic e xternal enclosures 
of consumer EEE for indoor use excluding medical devices on the grounds of a potential exposure to 
human and the environment although an appropriate risk assessment has not been conducted yet. 
OFR refers not to a single substance but is a generic term for all organohalogen flame retardants, 
whose number is said to be in the thousands to the tens of thousands or more. OFRs are commonly 
used in EEE plastic external enclosures to prevent the start of or spread of fires, and to protect 
human lives. Also, we have been informed by Japanese industries that there is little release of OFRs 
from consumer EEE plastic external enclosures used as intended and that the risk of adverse effects 
on human health and the environment is extremely low. If the OFR restrictions were to be 
implemented in a hasty manner, many products which are distributed as compliant products in other 
 
24 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 787. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 28 - 
 
  countries may be hindered to be distributed in not only the State of Washington but also the entire 
United States, and in addition  to seriously affecting many industries, many citizens in the United 
States would be at a huge disadvantage.  
2.94.   The DoE states in the Final Regulatory Analysis issued in May of 2023 that "The law defines 
safer as 'less hazardous', not 'less risky'. Including  a risk assessment or exposure assessment would 
not meet the definition of safer." as a justification for not conducting a risk assessment. In addition, 
during the hazard assessment for OFRs, the DoE concluded that all OFRs were hazardous using the 
results  for only 22 OFRs that are thought to be potentially hazardous. However, we believe that the 
measure of concluding that all OFRs are hazardous based on the evidence regarding merely 
22 examples out of the thousands to tens of thousands of such substances f or which an assessment 
was concluded without conducting the minimum necessary risk assessments and the fact that this 
OFR restrictions which uniformly prohibit all OFRs contained in plastic enclosures of consumer EEE 
would be put into effect despite the fa ct that such a law has never been implemented in any other 
US State, jurisdiction, or international convention, may be grounds for the assertion that these 
actions are more trade restrictive than necessary. Moreover, the DoE has asserted that several 
non-halogen flame retardants are available as alternatives to OFRs. However, it is not guaranteed 
that such alternatives can be used with the equivalent flame retardancy or reliability to OFRs 
currently used for consumer EEE plastic external enclosures, and it will take time to undertake such 
an assessment.  
2.95.   Based on the above, while we understand that the regulatory objectives, which are to protect 
human health and the environment, we are concerned that the OFR restrictions would be more trade 
restrictive than necessary to fulfill the objectives. Japan would like to request that the United States 
implement the following points in order for the OFR restrictions to be consistent with Articles 2.2 
and 2.12 of the TBT Agreement. 1) to conduct a more thorough risk as sessment on the impact on 
human health and the environment posed by OFRs contained in EEE plastic external enclosures and 
to make their intended measures consistent with the regulations in other countries and regions, 
2) based on the results of the risk as sessment, to identify the CAS Registration Number of the 
targeted OFRs, narrow the scope of the EEE to be regulated, and 3) to carry out a practical feasibility 
study on the alternatives, conduct public consultations and invite and consider stakeholders' o pinions 
and reconsider the necessity of OFR restrictions for EEE and an appropriate grace period.  
2.96.   In response, the representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The 
United States has offered Japan and China opportunities to meet bil aterally with the State of 
Washington and I hope they will take us up on that offer. The United States appreciates the 
comments submitted by China, Japan and Korea in response to this notification. The final measure 
was published 31 May 2023, as G/TBT/N/USA/1958/Add.1 . Visit the Safer Products for Washington 
rulemaking webpage for information about this rulemaking and to review the supporting documents. 
These include the Final Regulatory Analyses, the Concise Explanatory Statement, the Rule 
Implementation Plan, and the SEPA Determination of Non -significance.  
2.1.4.6   European Union - Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on shipments of waste and amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 
No 2020/1056, G/TBT/N/EU/893  (ID 78325) 
2.97.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia would like to 
thank the European Union for its response to Indonesia's enquiry regarding notification 
G/TBT/N/EU/893  - Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
shipments of waste and amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056 (COM 
(2021) 709 final) ("the proposal"), and we are still reviewing the document which was rec eived on 
31 October 2023. Indonesia is aware about the EU intention reflected in the notified draft which are 
to establish greater legal clarity and pursue harmonization in transboundary shipments of waste that 
additionally include measures to address ille gal waste shipments. While ensuring environmental 
protection, reduce the risks to human health, the proposal is ultimately designed to contribute to 
the circular economy by easing shipments of waste for reuse and recycling both within EU as well as 
globall y. Nonetheless, Indonesia is keen to highlight the TBT Agreement's provision, which states 
that actions attempted to accomplish legitimate objectives are presumed not to create unnecessarily 
obstacle to international trade. Indonesia shares the same commit ment in accordance with 
environmental preservation which incorporates the need to increase the implementation of circular 
 
25 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 783. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 29 - 
 
  economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve Net Zero Emissions. Related to waste 
management, Indonesia has set targets that n eed to be achieved gradually where 100% of waste 
in Indonesia is targeted to be well managed and 30% of them through 3R approach by 2025.  
2.98.   Moreover, Indonesia also pursues to reduce GHG emissions from waste sector by 40 million 
tonnes CO2e with its own eff orts and up to 43.5 million tonnes CO2e with the help from other 
countries by 2030.26 These ambitions are equipped with various legal instruments to ensure the 
enforcement, for instance Presidential Regulation No.97/2017, Waste Management that are oriented  
towards handling plastic waste, Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. P.75/2019 on 
Roadmap of Waste Reduction by Producer, Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation 
No.19/2021 on Guidelines on management of hazardous waste and non -hazardous waste, and 
environmental standards that harmonize with the international provisions. In addition, we emphasize 
the importance of recognizing environmental regulations and environmental standards that are also 
implemented and adopted by other WTO Memb er countries that have also implemented aspects of 
international environmental rules such as: Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary 
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants; Minamata  Convention on Mercury; UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; The 
Paris Agreement; Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer.  
2.99.   Indonesia ratified and implemented its obligations under the multilateral environmental 
agreements as reg ards the relevant reporting obligations thereof. Law (UU) No. 19 of 2009 on the 
Ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants27, Law No. 11/2017 on the 
Ratification of the Minamata Convention on Mercury28, Law No. 16/2016 on the  ratification of the 
Paris Agreement to The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change29, Presidential 
Decree No. 61 of 1993 on the Ratification of the Basel Convention on The Control of Transboundary 
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disp osal30, Presidential Regulation No. 129 of 2022 on 
the Ratification of the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 
Layer, Kigali, 201631, Presidential Regulation No. 47 of 2005 on the Ratification of the Amendment 
to The Bas el Convention on The Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and 
Their Disposal32. 
2.100.   For that, Indonesia will highly appreciate if the EU could consider it to be "broadly equivalent" 
to the EU conditions underpinning the environmentally sound management of waste. Referring to 
the above perspective, and in order to minimize potential technical barriers to trade due to the 
upcoming implementation of the EU WSR, Indonesia is open for collaboration with EU in addressing 
the objective of the propose d regulation. We intend to invite EU to provide information on the 
progress of the current regulatory discussion and the estimated time for its ratification which is 
currently underway in the EU, including in terms of registering as The List country. This is important 
as part of the preparation efforts of WTO Member countries to possibly study the technical and 
implementation instructions of the EUWSR.  
2.101.   The representative of Türkiye  provided the following statement. We would firstly like to thank 
the EU for  their cooperation. We have had a chance to meet with the EU delegation on the margins 
of the November 2022 TBT Committee meeting bilaterally. That said, we still have concerns 
regarding this regulation and we would like to state them today. In fact, Türki ye shares the stated 
EU objectives with this regulation of supporting the transition to a green and circular economy. 
However, we believe that the monitoring and inspection requirements and measures envisaged in 
the draft for waste shipments of especially recycled raw materials of certain industries go beyond 
the stated legitimate environmental objectives. In this regard, we believe that the trade restrictive 
nature of these measures might be incompatible with EU's international commitments. First of all, 
the draft lacks clear conditions for "monitoring of export and safeguard procedure" and for the 
inspection requirements of the importer facilities. These might lead to restriction of waste exports; 
and might impose additional burden and costs on importers w hile creating technical barriers to trade. 
Secondly, the draft legislation does not distinguish potentially hazardous waste streams such as 
mixed plastic waste from secondary raw materials being used as a raw material of certain industries. 
 
26 https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022 -09/23.09.2022_Enhanced%20NDC%20Indonesia.pdf   
27 https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/38639/uu -no-19-tahun -2009  
28 https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/53614/uu -no-11-tahun -2017  
29 https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/37573   
30 https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/62396/keppres -no-61-tahun -1993  
31 https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/230496/perpres -no-129-tahun -2022  
32 https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/42626/perpres -no-47-tahun -2005  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 30 - 
 
  This approach u ndermines the benefit of trade in certain secondary materials, which contribute to 
low emission production and thus boost global circularity.  
2.102.   In this sense, we believe the draft legislation may endanger the supply of raw materials for 
third countries' rec ycling facilities, hampering the already functioning circular economy in these 
countries. For instance, taking into consideration that 53.4 % of the ferrous scrap, 52.8 % of 
non-metal waste is imported from the EU, Turkish recycling industry and steel prod uction is highly 
dependent on the supply received from the EU. On the other hand, it is important to underline that 
under the Paris agreement, it is part of an international collective effort to reduce the carbon 
emissions significantly. Therefore, global cooperation is significant in this regard. Furthermore, Basel 
Convention and related OECD Decision already set the rules for transboundary movements of 
hazardous waste. In this sense, this draft regulation might be inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the 
TBT Agreement. In that respect, Türkiye would like to ask information to the EU on the negative 
environmental impact justifying the need for the implementation of additional requirements in the 
draft. What constitutes the basis for imposing certain measures to  monitor and when necessary 
restrict trade of ferrous scrap and non -metal non -hazardous waste for environmental protection 
concerns? Furthermore, Türkiye has been harmonizing relevant EU legislation with regards to waste 
management. Facilities in Türkiye t hat manage, recycle and import waste are already subject to 
licensing and auditing requirements. Therefore, the requirements foreseen by the legislation will 
bring additional burden for our facilities. In that respect, Türkiye would like to ask whether sim ilar 
additional monitoring and auditing requirements will be introduced for the EU member States as 
well.  
2.103.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The European Union (EU) would like to thank Indonesia and Tur kiye for their interest in the "Proposal 
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste and amending 
Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056 (COM(2021) 709 final)." We have recently 
replied to the questions  received. As indicated in the notification form, this notification was made 
for transparency purposes and does not prejudge the Union's position as to the applicability of the 
TBT Agreement.33 The volume of exports of waste from the EU is considerable (33  million tonnes in 
2020) and has substantially increased in the last decade (+75% since 2004). Waste shipped across 
borders can generate risks for human health and the environment, especially when not properly 
controlled. The notified draft, in line with t he EU's commitments under the European Green Deal, 
the Circular Economy Action Plan and the Zero Pollution Action Plan, aims to ensure that the EU does 
not export its waste challenges to third countries, seeks to tackle illegal waste shipments and seeks 
to contribute to the circular economy by facilitating shipments of waste for reuse and recycling in 
the EU. The EU welcomes that Indonesia indicates that it also shares the importance of a transition 
to a green and circular economy and the management of wast e in an environmentally sound manner. 
The EU reiterates that the notified draft does not prohibit international shipments of waste.  
2.104.   In order to avoid that exported waste emanating from the EU harms the environment or 
public health in countries outside of the EU, the notified draft includes provisions designed to ensure 
that the export of waste from the EU only takes place when there are sufficient guarantees that this 
waste will be managed in an environmentally sound manner in the country of destination. W aste 
treated in the EU is already subject to strict rules designed to protect the environment and human 
health. Waste treatment facilities in the EU are in addition subject to inspections and enforcement 
measures by national competent authorities in the EU  member States. In this context, the notified 
draft includes provisions which are designed to ensure that waste exported outside the EU is 
managed in the countries of destination in conditions that are "broadly equivalent" to EU conditions 
to underpin the environmentally sound management of waste. It therefore aims to achieve the EU's 
environmental and public health objectives by ensuring there is a coherent regulatory approach to 
waste treated in the EU and waste exported from the EU to third countries. Wh en assessing "broad 
equivalence", full compliance with requirements stemming from EU legislation shall not be required, 
but it should be demonstrated that the requirements applied in the third country of destination 
ensure a similar level of protection of human health and the environment than the requirements 
stemming from EU legislation.  
2.105.   The principle that all waste should be managed in conditions that are "broadly equivalent" 
to EU conditions when exported outside the EU is already reflected in the curre nt EU legislation on 
 
33 The notified draft was also notified to the Environment Committee on 2 June 2022.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 31 - 
 
  waste shipments.34 The notified draft is designed to ensure that the provisions on "broadly equivalent 
conditions" are made fully operational, and is intended to overcome persisting implementation 
difficulties associated with the lack of clear criteria on this point in the current Regulation. In that 
respect, the notified draft is necessary to secure compliance with the EU's regulatory regime for 
waste management. The EU reiterates that the notified draft does continue to distinguish be tween 
hazardous and "green -listed waste" relating to the applicable respective procedures for such wastes, 
but that it considers as well that the environmental objectives can only be met if the requirements 
relating to the environmentally sound management of waste apply to all types of waste exported 
from the EU. This principle is reflected in the existing legislation. In that respect, the EU notes that 
"green -listed waste" can also potentially cause environmental damage if not managed in an 
environmentally  sound manner. The criteria designed to demonstrate that waste is managed in an 
environmentally sound manner, are laid down in the notified draft.  
2.1.4.7   European Union - The PFAS Restriction Proposal under the Registration, 
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restric tion of Chemicals (ID 79835) 
2.106.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. Korea 
appreciates this opportunity to convey the following comments and concerns from our industries on 
the Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substa nces Restriction Proposal under the REACH Regulation, 
currently under consultation by the European Chemicals Agency. Due to the gravity of the issue, 
Korea had raised an STC at the previous TBT Committee meeting and submitted a formal letter via 
the Enquir y Point before the release of a draft regulation, requesting (1) clarification of the scope of 
the regulation and the provision of implementation guidelines on test methods and reference values 
for PFAS, (2) exclusion for specific uses and substances, and (3) transition and grace periods tailored 
to industries and specific applications. It is understood that Korean companies and associations 
representing the industries submitted comments to the ECHA in September. Korea requests that the 
EU fully consider an d appropriately reflect those industries' concerns and opinions, including those 
already filed for the ECHA public consultations and those that will be submitted through the WTO 
TBT Enquiry Point.  
2.107.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statemen t. Continuing on from the 
previous Committee meeting of June 2023, Japan would like to express its concerns about the 
proposal to newly restrict perfluoroalkyl compounds and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) under 
the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Auth orisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation, 
published by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in March this year. Since many PFASs are used 
in a wide range of sectors in which no alternative substance has been identified, a full ban on the 
use, tra de, and so forth encompassing all PFASs would be extremely trade restrictive. Japan 
understands the regulatory objectives of protecting human health and the environment. However, 
the proposed restriction, which would introduce a uniform restriction on the use, trade, and so forth 
of all PFASs, including PFASs that have not been proven to pose unacceptable risk and PFASs that 
pose less risk depending on their uses, would be inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, 
as the proposed restriction lacks  sufficient scientific and rational basis and is more trade restrictive 
than necessary to fulfil the regulatory objectives. We believe that the EU will provide a sufficient 
grace period in accordance with Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement when introducing the proposed 
restriction, but in light of the above and based on our understanding that more than 5,600 comments 
have been submitted to ECHA, we would like to request that the EU appropriately consider and 
examine the comments submitted by industries and o ther stakeholders, and limit the scope of the 
restriction to an appropriate range for the objectives of the REACH regulation, namely the protection 
of human health and the environment.  
2.108.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the foll owing statement. 
The EU would like to thank Japan and Korea for raising the issue of a possible PFAS restriction under 
EU REACH legislation. Pollution from PFAS (per - and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is a serious human 
health and environmental concern, cons idering the large number of cases of soil and water 
contamination across Europe - including drinking water. At the same time, PFAS are needed in critical 
applications, for example in the digital and energy sectors (e.g., semiconductors, electrolysers and 
membranes for green hydrogen production). Within the framework of the REACH Regulation, five 
 
34 Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on 
shipments of waste; OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1 –98 - https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02006R1013 -20210111&qid=1670254090535   
35 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 798. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 32 - 
 
  national authorities (from the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway) have proposed 
a broad ban with some derogations on the use of PFAS. This proposal i s currently undergoing an 
independent scientific assessment in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Scientific Committees. 
As part of this assessment, the ECHA's Scientific Committees will also carefully consider the need 
for derogations for specific appli cations. Of course, the EU will notify the measure to the TBT once it 
has a legal proposal ready.  
2.1.4.8   China – Packaging requirements for Edible Agricultural Products, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1715  (ID 80436) 
2.109.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the foll owing statement. We thank China for 
notifying this proposed measure on packaging requirements for edible agricultural products. While 
the objective of the draft regulation could contribute to waste reduction which may positively impact 
food business operat ors in the Philippines, we would like to request for the English version of the 
proposed regulation to determine whether the requirements could be potentially more trade 
restrictive than necessary.  
2.110.   The representative of India provided the following statement. India would like to reiterate 
its previous concern as we await China's response to the previous statement. India notes with 
concern China's Notification No. G/TBT/N/CHN/1715  dated 3 February 2023 related to Packa ging 
requirements for Edible Agricultural Products. India finds the packaging requirements as restrictive 
and excessive. India requests China to provide the detailed scientific assessment underlying the 
determination for various parameters including - numb er of packaging layers, inter -space ratio and 
weight ratio, as specified in the proposed standard. Further India requests China to provide rational 
for limiting the cost of packaging at 20% of the sale price of the product. India also requests China 
to ind icate the objective sought to be achieved through the proposed standard and how the proposed 
measures help in fulfilling the objective.  
2.111.   In response, the representative of China  provided the following statement. With the 
consumption upgrading of fresh edibl e agricultural products, the problem of excessive packaging of 
fresh edible agricultural products such as excessive packaging layers, large gaps, and high costs has 
gradually become prominent. In order to promote the green development of agriculture, stren gthen 
the management of the whole chain of commodity excessive packaging, and standardize and guide 
the appropriate and reasonable packaging of fresh edible agricultural products, The Chinese 
government has issued a mandatory national standard for "Limitin g Excessive Packaging of 
Commodities for Fresh Edible Agricultural Products". 1. Scope of application. This standard applies 
to the sales packaging of fresh edible agricultural products such as vegetables (including edible 
fungi), fruits, livestock and pou ltry meat, aquatic products, and eggs, excluding logistics protective 
packaging and functional products such as cooling, gas regulation, and moisture protection. 
According to Article 25 of "the Standardization Law of the People's Republic of China", produc ts and 
services that do not meet mandatory standards shall not be produced, sold, imported, or provided. 
Therefore, the import of fresh edible agricultural products for domestic sale needs to meet the 
requirements of this mandatory national standard. 2. Ju dgment criteria. The main criteria of the 
standard are the packaging void ratio, the number of packaging layers, and the packaging cost, and 
the excessive packaging in the standard refers to the packaging of fresh edible agricultural products 
that exceed t he requirements of these indicators. The main technical criteria include three aspects.  
2.112.   Firstly, the upper limit of 10% -25% package void ratio is set for fresh edible agricultural 
products of different categories and different sales packaging quality. For  the sale of goods with only 
one layer of packaging, the packaging void ratio is not limited. Secondly, it is to stipulate that 
vegetables (including edible fungi) and eggs should not exceed 3 layers of packaging, and fruits, 
livestock and poultry meat and  aquatic products should not exceed 4 layers of packaging. In the 
calculation process of the number of packaging layers, the net/net cover loaded with the whole fresh 
edible agricultural products, the combination of two materials, and the drawer type combi nation 
packaging are counted as one layer; Simple bundling ropes, labels, labels, padding, spacers, 
padding, cushioning, body -fitting packaging, and heat -shrinkable film attached to sales packaging 
are not considered as one layer. When calculating, the pac kaging directly in contact with fresh edible 
agricultural products is the first layer, and so on, the outermost packaging is the N layer, and N is 
the number of layers of the packaging. Thirdly, it is clear that the ratio of packaging cost and sales 
price of most fresh edible agricultural products does not exceed 20%. For strawberries, cherries, 
 
36 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 804. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 33 - 
 
  bayberries, loquat, livestock and poultry meat, aquatic products, and eggs whose sales price is more 
than 100 yuan, the limit ratio is not more than 15%. The cost o f packaging to some extent reflects 
whether the packaging is excessive. According to the investigation of the packaging of agricultural 
products in the Chinese mainland market, part of the agricultural products have excessive packaging 
phenomenon. Therefor e, this standard limits the packaging cost of fresh edible agricultural 
commodities in order to minimize the waste and environmental pressure caused by excessive 
packaging. The sales packaging included in the packaging cost includes: packaging materials, b ags, 
net bags/nets, net covers, bundling, padding, small tools, free gifts of non -fresh edible agricultural 
products, and so on. And excluding cooling, gas regulation, moisture and other fresh -keeping 
function supplies. The cost of sales packaging refers t o the contract price of sales packaging. If no 
contract is signed, the actual transaction price shall prevail. The sales price of the commodity refers 
to the sales contract price of the commodity. If no contract is signed, the actual transaction price 
shall prevail, and it is the highest price of the batch to which the commodity belongs.  
2.113.   3. Transitional arrangement. The transition period between the release date and the 
implementation date of the mandatory national standard "Limiting Excessive Packaging of  
Commodities for Fresh Edible Agricultural Products" is six months. Considering that after 
implementation, some fresh edible agricultural products produced or imported before the 
implementation date will continue to be sold, in order to avoid waste, Part V II of this standard 
provides that fresh edible agricultural products produced or imported before the implementation 
date of this document may be sold until the end of the shelf life. From the date of implementation, 
packaging of fresh edible agricultural p roducts that do not meet the requirements of this standard 
is not allowed in the Chinese market. 4. Supervision and management of standard implementation. 
The supervision and administration department of the mandatory national standards for "Limiting 
Exces sive Packaging of Commodities for Fresh Edible Agricultural Products" is the State 
Administration for Market Regulation of the People's Republic of China.  
2.1.4.9   United Arab Emirates - Technical Requirements for Electric Vehicle, 
G/TBT/N/ARE/572  (ID 79637) 
2.114.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. The seven Gulf GCC countries 
(Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Yemen) carry out uniform GCC certification 
for automotive products, and GSO conducts uniform testing and cert ification according to GSO 
standards, and mutual recognition within GCC members. However, there are repeated tests and 
repeated certifications on electric vehicle crash items. For example, the UAE crash standards directly 
quote the GSO standards. However, in terms of certification, the UAE requires that electric vehicles 
must apply for the UAE local vehicle certification certificate, and in the certification process, UAE 
officials require witness crash certification tests. In addition, Saudi Arabia also req uires electric 
vehicles to apply for a local Saudi Arabian vehicle certificate, and Saudi Arabian officials are also 
required to witness the crash certification tests. At the same time, in terms of other member states 
applying for GCC vehicle certificates,  in the GCC certification process, GSO officials are also required 
to witness the crash certification tests. However, the crash regulations and test methods adopted 
by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Gulf GCC are the same, and the implementation of such crash te sts 
requires the following resources: 2 complete vehicles and 2 body -in-white, and the certification cost 
is about 1 million RMB. If the vehicle certificates for three markets are applied for separately, the 
required resources are three times, that is, 6 v ehicles, 6 bodies -in-white, the certification cost is 
about 3 million RMB, and the witness test time of government officials in the three markets needs 
to be booked 3 -6 months in advance, resulting in an increase in the certification cycle of at least 3 
months. Article 6.1 of the WTO/TBT  Agreement stipulates that "Whenever possible, the results of 
conformity assessment procedures in other Members are accepted." GCC itself is an integrated 
market with a uniform conformity assessment procedure, and each member state s hall recognize 
the results of the GSO conformity assessment, which means the repeated test and repeated 
certification violate the principles of the GSO organization itself. Therefore, China suggests that the 
UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other GCC countries unifo rmly recognize the electric vehicle crash witness 
test report and GCC certification according to the GSO standard, so as to avoid repeated tests and 
repeated certifications for the same item, which can reduce unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
2.115.   The representat ive of the Philippines  provided the following statement. We thank the United 
Arab Emirates for notifying this measure, and to better assess the potential effects of this regulation, 
 
37 For previ ous statements follow the thread under ID 796. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 34 - 
 
  the Philippines would like to request the UAE to provide a list of product s (in HS codes) that will be 
covered by these proposed technical regulations for Electric Vehicles.  
2.116.   In response, the representative of the United Arab Emirates  provided the following 
statement. We have conveyed the message to the capital. We will get back to China as soon as we 
receive any response thereof. A technical statement was circulated following the meeting.38 
2.1.4.10   European Union - Proposal for a regulation on horizontal cybersecurity 
requirements for products with digital elements, G/TBT/N/EU/936  (ID 79539) 
2.117.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. Thanks for the EU's prompt 
response to our comments and concerns in the initial phase. Taking into account the most recent 
legislative advancements of CRA, we would like to raise the following concerns: 1. European 
Parliament version Recital 34a indicates high -risk vendors (HRV) and its assessment criteria. It is 
recommended to remove them; if not possible, it is advised to adopt objective, fair, clear, and 
proportionate criteria based  on technology for assessing suppliers and the supply chain. The 
evaluation criteria used ambiguous wording, such as "close links" between suppliers and non -EU 
countries. These standards lack objectivity compared to objective cybersecurity technical standa rds, 
which makes the application of standards uncertain. It is suggested to remove the wording of high -
risk suppliers from the draft regulation. To enhance cybersecurity, countries should establish 
cybersecurity standards based on technology neutrality to manage, test, verify and audit relevant 
suppliers. There are widely recognized international standards in the field of supply chain security, 
such as ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO28000; these can be utilized to ensure and evaluate supply chain 
security.  
2.118.   2. Europea n Parliamentary version of Chapter 2 2/13/3, Chapter 5 5/41/8&5/43/1& 5/45/1A, 
Council & Parliamentary version Recital 33: Each article emphasizes "non -technical risk factors". It 
is recommended to clarify the scope of "non -technical risk factors", and rel evant factors should be 
based on validated, transparent, non -discriminatory and proportionate criteria. The aforementioned 
formulation allows for the influence of non -technical factors on the withdrawal or recall of certain 
products, thereby impacting mark et access to the EU and EU members. Given that the precise scope 
of these non -technical factors remains undefined in current provisions, we concern over potential 
misuse leading to trade protection restrictions and violations of the principle of most -favou red-nation 
and national treatment. 3. The Parliamentary version of Chapter 1 1/6/5 requires that highly critical 
products must obtain a level "high" certification pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/881, such as 
EUCC high level, within 12 months after the ado ption of its relevant delegated act. Furthermore, it 
is recommended to extend the certification period to 36 months. At present, the EUCC in 
(EU)2029/881 certification scheme is being issued, while the formulation of EUCS/EU5G/EUXX and 
other certification schemes is still ongoing. Furthermore, most member States currently have only 
one certification body, which fails to meet the demands for a large number of highly critical product 
certifications. Based on an in -depth investigation into the status quo of th e international CC 
certification, it has been found that the average certification cycle for high -grade CC certification 
exceeds 12 months.  
2.119.   4. Parliament version 2 2/10/6 outlines the various factors manufacturers should consider 
when determining the supp ort period for vulnerability patches, as well as providing multiple methods 
to inform end users of the support period. Firstly, it is recommended to incorporate "the impact of 
the vulnerability" when determining the support period. Since different levels o f vulnerability have 
varying impacts on different areas, the "impact of the vulnerability" should be a crucial factor in 
considering the maintenance cycle. Secondly, it is recommended not to set mandatory requirements 
for the method of informing end users,  the method provided in the text serves as mere examples. 
5. Parliament version chapter 2 2/10/6: this article outlines the security updates shall remain 
available for a minimum duration of 10 years. It is advisable not to impose any limitations on the 
duration and instead refer to point 4 in the parliament version above, allowing the manufacturer to 
make a decision based on various factors. 6. For Parliament version Chapter 2 2/11/1a, it is 
recommended to add exception scenarios. The severity and impact of  the vulnerability may vary, 
therefore it is suggested that article (c) include a provision for exceptional circumstances based on 
the "one month" requirement for submitting the final report. Specifically, the manufacturers can 
 
38 G/TBT/W/779 . 
39 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 795. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 35 - 
 
  submit an extension applicat ion to the supervisory authority after a comprehensive assessment of 
vulnerability severity and impact.  
2.120.   7. Parliament version Chapter 2 2/11/4 stipulates that manufacturers shall notify product 
users about identified vulnerabilities and security incidents  that may impact product safety. It is 
recommended to clarify the definition of product users. In many cases, due to the resale or sale of 
products through local channels, the manufacturer cannot know all the information of end users, 
which results in the failure of notification obligation. Please clarify whether importers, authorized 
representatives, and distributors should also be considered as users. 8. For ANNEX I 1/(3), it is 
recommended to further clarify the requirements. Due to the unpredictability of vulnerability 
occurrences, there remains an uncontrollable time gap between the execution/completion of product 
conformity assessment and its release into the market. In some cases, vulnerabilities may even be 
discovered while the product is already in transit. Manufacturers face challenges in enforcing this 
requirement. Therefore, it is recommended that vulnerability treatment of post -conformity 
assessment for products should adhere to the requirements specified in Chapter 2 2/11/1a of the 
draft regulat ion. In addition, it is recommended to add a definition of "known exploitable 
vulnerabilities" in Chapter 1, Section 1/3.  
2.121.   9. Parliament and Council version of ANNEX I 2/(1) requires vulnerabilities and components 
contained in the identification and record ing of products, including drafting software bills of materials 
in common and machine -readable formats that cover at least the top level of product dependencies. 
It is advisable to eliminate the requirement for providing software bills of materials. Consid ering that 
the legislative intent of regulations is to inform users about security vulnerabilities, it is essential for 
these regulations to clearly outline the requirements for achieving vulnerability management 
objectives without specifying the specific means and methods. Furthermore, in the realm of technical 
standards, research on bill of materials is still in its nascent stage, lacking a consensus on its 
application. If misused, it could potentially expose software supply to more precise security attac ks 
and subsequent incidents. Therefore, Article 7 of ANNEX V should also be simultaneously removed. 
10. Regarding ANNEX I 2/(4), It is recommended that the disclosure of vulnerabilities should not be 
comprehensively public and instead support the adoption of a parliamentary version for description. 
11. Regarding ANNEX I 2/(8), it is recommended that the upgrade cost of product software should 
comply with both supply and demand contracts as well as industry practices, rather than mandating 
free upgrades. Add itionally, it is advised to support the adoption of parliamentary versions for 
description. 12. For ANNEX III, it is recommended to support the Council's version of the Critical 
Product Category I & II list, which takes into account the cybersecurity risks  associated with 
products.  
2.122.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement. We thank the EU for 
notifying this proposed measure. The regulation will cover a wide range of products ranging from 
computers and laptops, smartphones and t ablets, and cloud -based services. To better assess the 
potential effect on our exports, the Philippines would like to request the European Union to provide 
a list of products (in HS codes) that will be covered by the Horizontal cybersecurity requirements 
under the draft Cyber Resilience Act (CRA).  
2.123.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU would like to thank China and Philippines for the comments they provided on the Proposal 
for a regulation on horizonta l cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements. The EU 
takes note of detailed comments provided by China today, and as regards comments provided by 
Philippines the EU would like to note that in its Article 3 the Proposal for a regulation o n horizontal 
cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements defines "products with digital 
elements" as "any software or hardware product and its remote data processing solutions, including 
software or hardware components to be placed on the  market separately". The definition is to be as 
comprehensive as possible, in order to minimise cyber risks, in environments where products are 
increasingly connected and hence hackable. Examples of such products include laptops or 
smartphones, products wh ich are part of the Internet of Things thanks to digital connectivity features 
that are built in or added to them (smart refrigerator, smart TV, smart printers, connectable 
machinery equipment), as well as microprocessors, operating systems or firewalls.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 36 - 
 
  2.1.4.11   European Union - Hazard -based approach to plant protection products and 
setting of import tolerances, G/SPS/N/EU/166 , G/SPS/N/EU/166/Add.1 , 
G/SPS/N/EU/263 , G/TBT/N/EU/383 , G/TBT/N/EU/383/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/384 , 
G/TBT/N/EU/384/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/495  (ID 39340) 
2.124.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia remains 
concerned about the significant uncertainty surrounding the mechanisms for settin g import 
tolerances for substances falling under the hazard cut -off criteria, without adequate consideration of 
actual or anticipated exposure to the substance. We consider that reduction of allowable residues in 
imported products to the limit of determina tion would impose a de facto ban on the usage of those 
products in trading partners should they wish to export to the EU. For example, the primarily hazard -
based assessment of mancozeb – and associated lowering of maximum residue limits (MRLs) to the 
level of quantification – removes safe use of these products by Australian farmers where there is 
limited availability of alternatives. Australia maintains that the use of food residue limits to pursue 
domestically set environmental policy outcomes in third cou ntries is inappropriate as it does not 
account for variations in risk stemming from differences in pollinator species, environmental 
conditions and chemical use practices around the world. The Australian pesticides regulator – the 
Australian Pesticides and  Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) – must consider impact on off -
target species in its assessments of products for registration. The APVMA's decisions consider the 
specific practices and settings of Australian farms and Australian environmental condit ions. 
Accordingly, Australia requests that the EU maintain MRLs for substances that do not pose 
unacceptable dietary risks and import tolerances be authorized based on dietary risk alone. Australia 
reiterates its position from previous meetings about the i mportance of adopting a risk -based 
approach for regulating plant protection products rather than considering only the potential for harm 
due to the intrinsic properties of a chemical. We remain available to discuss our approach to pesticide 
regulation with  the EU and look forward to continued and constructive engagement on this issue, 
including in the SPS Committee.  
2.125.   The representative of Kenya  provided the following statement. 1. Kenya reiterates her 
previous position on this Specific Trade Concern. 2. Keny a takes note of the EU's response given in 
the June 2023 TBT Committee meeting. The reference made by the EU are guidelines from European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). However, there is need to 
cross reference to other international guidelines issued by CODEX Alimentarius Commission and 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), as well as other scientific literature. 3. The EU's 
proposed measure is on Hazard -based approach to plant protection products and setting  of import 
tolerances whereas in the response issued in the June 2023 TBT Committee meeting, the EU bases 
their assessment on risk analysis principles on a case -by-case basis which is subjective. A wholistic 
approach to risk analysis consistent with CODEX guidelines should be adopted for purposes of 
consistency and predictability. 4. Adoption of the Hazard based system by the EU has the potential 
to create unnecessary barriers to trade by limiting the availability of plant protection products. This 
is deeme d to be inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. In addition, Technical 
Regulations shall not be more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking 
account of the risks non -fulfilment would create. 5. Kenya reiterates  that a Risk Based Approach is 
the best international practice that meets the intended objective. 6. The proposed measure would 
be deemed to be in contravention of Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement which requires that "Members 
shall, in the preparation and  application of technical regulations, standards and conformity 
assessment procedures, take account of the special development, financial and trade needs of 
developing country members, with a view to ensuring that such technical regulations, standards and 
conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to exports from developing 
country members". 7. Kenya requests EU to withdraw this measure.  
2.126.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes to 
express  its gratitude for the opportunity to raise this trade concern once again, as it is genuinely 
concerned about the hazard -based approach adopted by the EU when setting its import tolerances 
for products coming from trade destinations outside of the EU bloc.  Under the obligations of the 
multilateral system, all technical requirements are to be aligned with an international reference 
standard or a risk assessment providing the scientific basis for the measure. Costa Rica once again 
urges the EU to ensure that the application of its regulations is based on risk assessments that meet 
 
40 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 393. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 37 - 
 
  criteria supported by sufficient scientific evidence, in accordance with the obligations set out in the 
TBT Agreement.  
2.127.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to refer to 
its previous statements regarding STC 393. Brazil understands that the European approach to 
limiting the use of pesticides is more trade restrictive than necessary and disregards risk analysis in 
the process of adopting this r egulation. Regulations on endocrine disruptors must be established 
according to sound scientific principles and taking into account all available data. Previous EU's 
responses have been limited to indicating which EU regulations are the basis for the analy ses and 
conclusions in this matter. Recalling that the TBT Agreement provides that measures must be based 
on the best available scientific evidence and not just on the national (or communitary) regulations 
themselves, Brazil would like the EU to present sc ientific evidence that would support such measures.  
2.128.   The representative of India provided the following statement. India remains concerned about 
the significant uncertainty surrounding the mechanisms for setting import tolerances for substances 
falling unde r the hazard cut -off criteria. We consider that reduction of allowable residues in imported 
products to the limit of determination would impose a de facto ban on the usage of those products 
in trading partners. As stated previously, such a hazard -based app roach would not improve public 
health or environmental protection, but may have adverse consequences for sustainable agricultural 
production due to the removal of crop protection tools from the market, despite their established 
safety in use. India reitera tes its position from previous meetings about the importance of adopting 
a risk -based approach for regulating plant protection products rather than considering only the 
potential for harm due to the intrinsic properties of a chemical.  
2.129.   The representative of Ecuador  provided the following statement. We recognize the 
importance of protecting human and environmental health. However, we consider that regulatory 
decisions taken on the basis of hazard -based criteria are not consistent with int ernational 
risk-assessment practice, given that there is no consideration of exposure. The precautionary 
approach has resulted in approvals of active ingredients increasingly being withdrawn for lack of 
data and MRLs subsequently being reduced to the minim um detection limit. Furthermore, there is 
some concern about the EU's policy of establishing MRLs and import tolerances for active substances 
that are no longer approved in the EU. Establishing MRLs for these active substances at 
predetermined limits could  have negative implications for trade by affecting the importation of 
products in the EU. This could have a major negative economic impact on small -, medium - and 
large-scale producers in Ecuador, as well as on consumers in the EU, since the supply of our p roducts 
would be affected. Ecuador urges the EU to take into account scientific information emanating from 
the international specialized bodies recognized by the WTO, such as the Codex Alimentarius, which 
has relevant information on pesticides.  
2.130.   Ecuador als o urges the EU to take into account the recommendations of the Committee on 
Technical Barriers to Trade related to good regulatory practices, particularly with regard to carrying 
out a regulatory impact analysis prior to the issuance of regulatory proposal s, which examines all 
possible social, economic, environmental and health impacts. This is to ensure compliance with the 
obligation not to be more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, in 
accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. When risk analysis studies carried out by the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) determine that a result is inconclusive as regards the 
potential impact on health, the EU, owing to its precautionary principle, establishes the maximum 
residue limit at the analytical detection level. Ecuador calls on the EU to recommend that the EFSA 
conduct more in -depth studies in order to obtain conclusive information that supports the ban or 
reduction of MRLs. Lastly, Ecuador urges the EU to establish a simp ler and more expeditious process 
for the application of import tolerances, similar to that of emergency authorizations for member 
countries.  
2.131.   The representative of Argentina  provided the following statement. We would like to thank 
the delegations for includ ing this trade concern on the meeting agenda and request that Argentina's 
support be put on record. Argentina once again reiterates its concern and stresses the importance 
of ensuring that all Members implement measures based on risk assessments, taking ac count of the 
risk assessment techniques developed by international reference bodies, including the principles for 
the establishment of maximum residue levels for pesticides, as well as the many risk analyses that, 
over the decades, the Codex Alimentarius h as conducted to ensure safety. Argentina joins the other 
delegations and reiterates its request to the European Union to ensure that the implementation of G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 38 - 
 
  its regulations is based on the use of risk assessments through the application of criteria supported  
by sufficient scientific evidence, in line with the commitments established in the TBT Agreement.  
2.132.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Paraguay reiterates its 
position and refers to its previous statements, while stressing the importance of adopting a scientific 
risk-based approach to the regulation of plant protection products, instead of basing it solely on the 
hazard arising from the intrinsic properties of a chemical. In this regard, Paraguay once again 
requests the European  Union to take account of information on pesticides provided by the specialized 
agencies recognized by the WTO, such as the Codex Alimentarius, and reconsider its approach and 
base its decisions on conclusive scientific evidence and real risk weightings, i n accordance with the 
relevant international standards and principles. Paraguay also asks that, where necessary, the EU 
provide sufficient transitional periods and establish science -based import tolerances with streamlined 
mechanisms, such as those for eme rgency authorizations.  
2.133.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Uruguay thanks Costa Rica, 
Australia and Kenya for including this specific trade concern on the agenda. Uruguay supports the 
comments made by the other delegations and r eaffirms its systemic trade concern relating to the 
EU's use of a hazard -based approach, instead of an approach based on comprehensive scientific risk 
assessments, to the adoption of regulatory decisions authorizing active substances used in plant 
protecti on products, and setting import tolerance levels for substances that fall below the cut -off or 
exclusion criteria established in Regulation No. 1107/2009. We reiterate the need to base such 
decisions on conclusive scientific evidence, gathered from an asse ssment of the actual risks, to avoid 
imposing unjustified restrictions on active substances that are still important components of pest 
management systems and are used safely. This is due to the fact that an approach based on hazard 
rather than on actual r isk could have a negative and disproportionate impact on production, while 
contributing little or nothing to the cited aim of protecting public health. As usual, Uruguay continues 
to support any multilateral efforts undertaken by the Codex Alimentarius to develop a harmonized, 
risk-based approach to the treatment of plant protection products and MRLs for foods that would 
protect health and, at the same time, facilitate international trade. In the meantime, we once again 
urge the EU to listen to and address the concerns expressed by many Members, and to reconsider 
its regulatory approach in order to avoid the unjustified proliferation of barriers to international trade 
in agricultural products.  
2.134.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided th e following statement. 
The European Union thanks WTO Members for their interest in the ongoing work in the EU on 
identifying endocrine disruptors for plant protection products. The EU reiterates that the scientific 
criteria to identify endocrine disruptors  for plant protection products based on the WHO definition 
are applicable since 10 November 2018 onwards and included in Commission Regulation (EU) No 
2018/605.41 This is complemented by a guideline by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and 
the Euro pean Chemicals Agency (ECHA), providing more details on how to interpret these criteria.42 
Plant protection products and residues in or on those products are regulated in the EU by Regulation 
(EC) No 1107/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Both Regulati ons are complementary and are 
implemented in a coordinated manner to avoid risks and hazards for humans, animals and the 
environment in the use of plant protection products. Environmental protection is foreseen in the EU 
Regulatory framework, and this is a pplicable to pesticide residues. When taking risk management 
decisions, all the factors relevant to the matter under consideration shall be taken into account, as 
foreseen by the relevant EU legislation.43 This includes environmental factors when read toge ther 
with Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requiring that "Environmental 
protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union's 
policies and activities, in particular with a view to  promoting sustainable development." We are 
aware of general concerns on EU policy on plant protection products for the definition of scientific 
criteria to identify endocrine disruptors and on the establishment of import tolerances for substances 
not auth orized in the EU, due to the so -called "cut -off" criteria in Regulation (EC) No 1107/200944 
on plant protection products. As previously explained, the European Union decided to follow the 
 
41 Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) 
No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination  of endocrine disrupting properties. 
OJ L 101, 20.4.2018, p. 33.  
42 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311   
43 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and Regulation 178/2002.  
44 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC 
and 91/414/EEC. OJ L 309 24.11.2009, p. 1.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 39 - 
 
  procedures of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for the management of impo rt tolerance requests 
concerning active substances falling under these cut -off criteria, which include a risk assessment by 
an Evaluating EU member State and a scientific opinion by the EFSA. The granting of the import 
tolerance is then considered in line with risk analysis principles on a case -by-case basis and taking 
into account all relevant factors. During the thematic session on Trade Facilitating Approaches to 
Pesticide MRLs, in the margins of the SPS Committee of 22 March 2022, the EU provided an ove rview 
of the methodology used in EU for pesticide residues risk assessment.45 The EU reiterates its 
commitment to act in full transparency and keep WTO Members duly informed about further 
developments.  
2.1.4.12   Indonesia - Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 201 4 and its implementing 
regulations, G/TBT/N/IDN/123 , G/TBT/N/IDN/131 , G/TBT/N/IDN/131/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/IDN/134 , G/TBT/N/IDN/134/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/IDN/138 , G/TBT/N/IDN/139 , 
G/TBT/N/IDN/139/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/IDN/140 , G/TBT/N/IDN/140/Add.1 , 
G/TBT/N/IDN/157  , G/TBT/N/IDN/161 , G/TBT /N/IDN/162 , G/TBT/N/IDN/163 , and 
G/TBT/N/IDN/164  (ID 50246) 
2.135.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union reiterates its serious concerns on the Indonesian Hal al Product Assurance Law No 33 of 
September 2014 and its implementing provisions. Mandatory Halal certification and labelling would 
be required for a very wide range of products to be placed on the Indonesian market, which would 
result in significant obsta cles to EU trade with Indonesia. In particular, the EU is concerned about 
Indonesia's stance and policy that disregard the EU's principle of single market, despite repeated 
calls from the EU. The single market has enabled EU -based halal certifiers in any E U member State 
to certify companies from other EU member States. The EU invites Indonesia to consider less 
restrictive alternatives to the current, wide -ranging mandatory Halal certification and labelling, to 
pursue the legitimate objective of ensuring rel iable information for consumers without unduly 
hindering trade flows. Among the main issues of concern for the EU are the "non -Halal" information 
requested for non -Halal products and the planned extension of Halal requirements to products other 
than food a nd beverages. In this respect, the EU stresses the importance of ensuring the continued 
possibility to place non -Halal products on the Indonesian market. Furthermore, to ensure the 
workability of the system for foreign operators, there is a need for more c larity and a pragmatic 
approach, as regards the requirements for recognition of foreign Halal certificates by Indonesia. It 
is also crucial that all companies have the possibility to certify their product via a foreign Halal 
certification body well in adva nce of the mandatory deadline i.e. foreign Halal certification bodies to 
be accredited at least a year before the mandatory deadline. The EU reiterates its willingness to 
continue further discussion and cooperation on Halal issues with Indonesia, with the aim of finding 
a practical way forward and solve trade concerns.  
2.136.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
remains interested in working with Indonesia to ensure implementation of Indonesia's Halal Product  
Assurance Law is achieved in a way that is consistent with Indonesia's WTO obligations. 
Unfortunately, many of our long -standing concerns remain unanswered. We again refer Indonesia 
to our statements and concerns from previous WTO TBT Committee meetings, as well as outstanding 
questions submitted as G/TBT/W/761  and ask Indonesia to respond to all questions and concerns 
laid out in the Working Document and past statements. We remained concerned about the continued 
pattern with regard to halal decrees and re gulations, whereby measures are finalized without 
providing an opportunity for stakeholder comment. In fact, just last week, on Thursday, 2 November 
Indonesia notified six halal related measures, four of which appear to have been adopted and entered 
into f orce months before being notified, including: G/TBT/N/IDN/161 , G/TBT/N/IDN/162 , 
G/TBT/N/IDN/163 , and G/TBT/N/IDN/164 .  
2.137.   Furthermore, it appears that Presidential Decree Number 6 of 2023 on Halal Certification for 
Drugs, Biological Products, and Medical Devices (PD 6/2023) entered into force in January 2023, 
nearly six months prior to being notified a s G/TBT/N/IDN/157 . We refer Indonesia to the comments 
submitted by the United States Government and US industry stakeholders through the Enquiry Point 
before the comment deadline in September 2023. We invite Indonesia to comment on how it took 
stakeholder comments into account given that the Decree had already entered into force. Many of 
our concerns with PD 6/2023 echo our previously raised concerns: First, there is a lack of clarity 
 
45 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematicsession220322_e.htm   
46 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 502. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 40 - 
 
  about what products require certification, the definition of anim al ingredients and their derivative 
products, and what materials are classified as "haram" or forbidden. Second, this regulation creates 
Indonesia -specific halal certification requirements that apply to products that have not been subject 
to mandatory hala l certification requirements previously, such as cosmetics and services. In the 
absence of existing international standards, will Indonesia intend to develop new, Indonesia -specific, 
halal standards for these products? If so, can Indonesia share informatio n about those standards? 
Third, the duplicative labelling requirements will create confusion for consumers and will be costly 
and challenging for companies, both foreign and domestic, to implement. Finally, Indonesia 
continues to require halal certificatio n for a variety of services in this regulation, including 
processing, packaging, and storage, but has yet to adequately engage stakeholders or provide clarity 
on the necessity of that requirement. Industry remains concerned about how to comply with such 
requirements.  
2.138.   In addition to PD 6/2023, can Indonesia confirm what implementing regulations are 
forthcoming and what is the expected timeline for notification? Will there be other industry -specific 
implementing regulations, for example related to halal cert ification for cosmetics or services? We 
again urge Indonesia to notify these regulations when drafts become available, before they take 
effect, and to take stakeholder comments into account before the draft regulations are adopted and 
implemented. In early  2022, Indonesia issued Presidential Emergency Regulation No. 2 Year 2022 
(Perppu No 2 Tahun 2022), which appears to modify several provisions in the Halal Product 
Assurance Law. As previously asked, does Indonesia intend to notify this measure to this Com mittee, 
given that it may have a significant effect on international trade? We also remain concerned about 
the lengthy process for accrediting halal certifying agencies, and that agencies may not be accredited 
in time before the certification requirements are implemented starting in 2024. Please provide an 
update on how Indonesia is addressing this concern. We remain committed to working with 
Indonesia to address the aforementioned concerns and those raised by other Members in this 
Committee and to ensure t hat Indonesia's halal measures do not create unnecessary obstacles to 
international trade. We therefore look forward to an update on what Indonesia is doing to address 
the concerns that have been raised in this Committee, and to respond to the specific que stions raised 
today.  
2.139.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia welcomes 
ongoing discussions on the Indonesian Halal Product Assurance Law No.33 of 2014 (Halal Law). 
Australia encourages Indonesia to continue to facilitate an open and transparent dialogue with its 
trading partners that allows foreign businesses and their valued Indonesian importers to remain 
adequately informed of the Halal Law's implementation. Australia appreciates recent engagement 
with Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Organizing Agency (BPJPH) and Indonesia's commitment 
to work bilaterally with Australia on the implementation of the Halal Law. Australia welcomes further 
opportunities to engage with BPJPH on a number of technical matters relating to the  implementation 
of the Halal Law. This includes the process and timeframes for accreditation of Australian halal 
certifying bodies, clarification on how Australia's existing halal assurance processes will continue to 
interact with Indonesia's regulations w hen the grace period for the Halal Law ends in 2024, and 
additional updates from Indonesia on products that do not require halal certification under the Halal 
Law. We welcome further dialogue on the Halal Law to ensure its implementation is clear and no 
more trade restrictive than necessary.  
2.140.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement. We share the 
concerns raised by the European Union, the United States, Australia, Switzerland, and Canada on 
Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance La w No. 33 of 2014. We acknowledge the legitimate objective 
of Indonesia for the mandatory Halal certification of products to prevent deceptive practices and 
strengthen consumer protection. Following our statement at the June meeting, the Philippines 
reitera tes our request for Indonesia to provide the HS codes for products and CPC for services sectors 
that will be covered by the mandatory certification. We note that the Philippines and Indonesia had 
started laying the groundwork for a possible Memorandum of U nderstanding with Indonesia's Halal 
Product Assurance Agency in 2021, allowing for the recognition of Halal accreditation bodies between 
our two countries. We look forward to revisiting these discussions with Indonesia at the soonest 
possible time.  
2.141.   The rep resentative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada welcomes recent 
bilateral engagement between Canadian and Indonesian competent authorities on this matter and 
we look forward to this engagement continuing in a constructive fashion.  Neverthel ess Canada 
would once again like to join other Members in expressing its concerns with Indonesia's Halal Product G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 41 - 
 
  Assurance Law no. 33 of 2014, and its implementing regulations, as it continues to represent a 
barrier to Canadian exports of halal products to  Indonesia. While Canada supports Indonesia's 
objective to provide Indonesian consumers the assurance that they have access to products that are 
certified as halal through a rigorous and recognized process, the broad scope of the measure, as 
well as the la ck of predictability and clarity on its implementation, remain problematic. We refer 
Indonesia to our statements from previous WTO TBT Committee meetings. Canada thanks Indonesia 
for notifying Presidential Decree Number 6 of 2023 regarding Halal Certificat ion of Medicines, 
Biological Products and Medical Devices as G/TBT/N/IDN/157 . However, once again, we note that 
while the measure was notified on 11 July 2023, with a 60 -day comment period, it came into force 
on 19 January 2023. Could Indonesia plea se provide clarity as to how such an approach to 
transparency is in line with Indonesia's obligations under the TBT Agreement, in particular, can 
Indonesia explain how WTO Members' comments can be taken into account in the development of 
a technical regula tion when the measure has already been adopted and entered into force six months 
before? Could Indonesia provide additional information on whether a halal certification body for 
food/beverages/beef slaughter will be authorized to certify halal certificatio n for drugs, biological 
products, and medical devices? Are there specific requirements for the halal certification body, such 
as the halal certification body must have a Moslem pharmacist/medical doctor as the halal assessor? 
Further, could Indonesia provi de information on when industry -specific implementing regulations 
will be developed? Canada thanks Indonesia for recently notifying six measures related to halal 
certification, referred as G/TBT/N/IDN/159  to 164. Canada will be reviewing these measu res and 
trusts that any comments it submits will be taken into consideration in the final measure. However, 
we understand that some of these measures have already entered into force despite Indonesia 
providing a comment period. We once again urge Indonesia  to abide by its transparency obligations 
under the TBT Agreement.  
2.142.   The representative of Norway  provided the following statement. I first would like to thank 
the EU and United States for raising this issue. As underlined in our earlier interventions under this 
issue, Norway recognizes Indonesia's objective of providing its consumers with access to products 
which are certified as halal. Norway would like to note that the notified regulations are included in 
different regulations. It is therefore not easy to get a complete overview of the framework. We are 
further concerned by the uncertainty with regard to products which are listed as exempt from halal 
certification, as it is hard to deduce which products are exempt on the basis of the described 
categories. I ndonesian authorities have confirmed that seafood is considered as halal. But if 
understood correctly, Norway questions why for instance non -slaughtered, wild caught frozen fish 
which has not undergone processing must be certified as halal. Norway requests  Indonesia to provide 
more detailed information about the exemption procedures and product categorisation. Norway finds 
that the total extent of these measures place excessive burdens on economic operators and foreign 
governments and create barriers to tra de. We look forward to further cooperation with Indonesia in 
order to find solutions in the seafood sector which secure the least trade restrictive framework 
possible.  
2.143.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement. Switzerland shares the 
concerns expressed by other Members regarding Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 
2014 and its implementing regulations, which require mandatory halal certification and labelling for 
a wide range of products. In particular, we stress the importance of the recognition of foreign Halal 
certification bodies and the acceptance of foreign certificates. In this context we kindly ask Indonesia 
to confirm that Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements are accepted as 
government -to-government a greements under the Indonesian Halal Law. We thank for the recent 
notification of several decrees containing clarifications and guidelines in connection with halal 
certification. We will analyse these in detail and get back to the Indonesian enquiry point in case of 
questions and further comments.  
2.144.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia 
would like to thank the European Union, the United States, Australia, Philippines, Switzerland, and 
Canada for their continu es interest on Halal Product Assurance Implementation in Indonesia. 
Indonesia as the biggest moslem country in the world, should ensure a reliable information regarding 
halal integrity of products that is consumed or used by people through Halal Certificat ion mechanism 
and labelling. It is also referred to the Al -Quran and Al Hadiths as guidance, in accordance to Islamic 
Law or Syariah. Mandatory halal certification applied not only to foreign business actors, but also 
domestic producers. Indonesia stressed  that non halal products can still be distributed in Indonesia 
as long as they meet the requirements states in the halal regulation, including the inclusion of 
non-halal information in the form of images, signs or writing. Non -halal information is not only  made G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 42 - 
 
  by written text "non -halal" label at the product packaging, but it can also show by images/other 
signs which essentially becomes a means of communicating information between business actors 
and consumers that the products are not halal. This obligati on to include non -halal information is 
carried out independently/self -declared and does not go through a registration process.  
2.145.   The mechanism to obtain halal certificates for imported products is implemented through 2 
mechanisms, such as: Direct halal cert ification in Indonesia through BPJPH certification procedures 
and requirements; or Halal Certification by its country foreign halal certifications bodies which has 
been recognized and listed by BPJPH. The recognition of foreign halal certification bodies, will be 
conducted by halal accreditation and/or conformity assessment of foreign halal certification bodies 
in accordance with provisions of statutory regulations, halal standards and sharia Law applied in 
Indonesia. (Please refer the Guideline for Accredi tation And/or Conformity Assessment of Foreign 
Halal Certification Bodies, notified as G/TBT/N/IDN/159 ). Foreign Halal Certification Bodies can 
certify the final products depends on the scope of foreign halal certification bodies' competence. The 
competence scope will be decided from assessment result according to the competency of the 
resources of the agency (internal and external resources), the number of halal auditors and the 
existence of sharia boards.  
2.146.   Indonesia previously has notified to the W TO TBT Committee, the derived regulations related 
to halal certification, to ensure all stakeholders understand the certification process in Indonesia, 
such as: Mandatory Halal Certification Stages of Implementation and labelling information, 
GR 39/2021 (n otified as G/TBT/N/IND/131 , G/TBT/N/IND/131/Add.1 ). Products category that are 
mandatory to be halal certified as listed in Minister of Religious Affairs Regulation No. 748 of 2021 
(notified as G/TBT/N/IND/134 , G/TBT/N/IND/134/Add.1 ). Regulation of Minister of Finance Number 
57/PMK.05/2021 regarding Tariff for Public Services provided by Halal Product Assurance Organizing 
Agency (BPJPH), Ministry of Religiou s Affairs (notified as G/TBT /N/IND/138 ). International 
Cooperation on Halal Product Assurance, Minister of Religious Affairs Number 2 of 2022 (notified as 
G/TBT/N/IDN/139  and G/TBT/N/IDN/139/Add.1 ). Products category or m aterial which are not 
necessary to be halal certified as listed in Minister of Religious Affairs Regulation No. 1360 of 2021 
(notified as G/TBT/N/IND/140 , G/TBT/N/IND/140/Add.1 ). Currently, Indonesia has also notified the 
impleme ntation regulations of halal certifications: Draft Decree of Halal Product Assurance 
Organizing Agency No.__ of 2023 Regarding the Determination of General Services Rates of BPJPH, 
(notified as G/TBT/N/IDN/161 ). Decree of The Head of Halal Product Assurance Organizing Agency 
No. 20 of 2023 Regarding the Criteria for Halal Product Assurance System, (notified as 
G/TBT/N/IDN/162 ). 
2.147.   The Presidential Decree Number 6 of 2023 regarding Halal Certification of Medicines, 
Biological Products, and Medica l Devices (notified as G/TBT /N/IND/157 ), regulates provisions for 
products in the form of medicines, biological products, and medical devices originating from 
non-halal materials and/or the method of production are not yet halal. It should be highlighted that 
medicines, biological products, and medical devices originating from non -halal materials or materials 
are not yet sourced from halal sources still can be circulated and traded in Indonesia by including 
Non-Halal Information on the products . If medical devices do not contain animal elements, it does 
not need to be certified halal and can still be circulated in Indonesia. The mandatory implementation 
stages of halal certification in medical devices will be forced with a maximum time of 
17 October 2039. This transition time is considered sufficient for domestic and foreign business 
actors to prepare the requirements for halal certification. With regard to the implementation of halal 
international cooperation regulations, it is clearly mentioned  that the mutual recognition and 
acceptance will be based on bilateral agreement between 2 countries, which is Indonesia and partner 
country.  
2.148.   The halal certificate should only be issued for business actors from its origin country foreign 
halal certification bodies. The international halal cooperation should follow the availability of a G -to-G 
MoU between Indonesia and its country partner. Based on the statutory provision, Indonesia does 
not apply cross -country and cross -border certification in t erms of mutual recognition and mutual 
acceptance of halal certification. It is important to mention that fish products are including to seafood 
products that is considered as halal. Indonesia never issued regulations requiring fish to be 
slaughtered first before consumed. In accordance with regulations, the fresh, frozen, dried and 
salted fish and fishery products are exempt from halal certification obligations. But if fish and fish 
products are undergone further processing treatment, then it should be hala l certified. Indonesia 
understands that the HS code is needed to facilitate trade and transparency, therefore BPJPH has 
prepared regulations regarding The Establishment of Harmonized System Codification of Types of G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 43 - 
 
  Products that are Required to be Halal Ce rtified in Food and Beverages, notified as 
G/TBT/N/IDN/160 ). Lastly, Indonesia looks forward to further cooperation and open dialogue with 
WTO Member to ensure that halal certification will not become unnecessary barrier to trade.  
2.1.4.13   China - Cybersecur ity Law (ID 52647) 
2.149.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to refer to its statements at previous TBT Committees with regard to the Cybersecurity Law48, 
the Data Security Law49 and related legislation an d standards. The concerns raised in those previous 
statements remain and have already had a severe negative effect on business confidence. 
Uncertainty remains around key legal and regulatory definitions, including, but not limited to, critical 
information infrastructure operator50, online platform operator, network products and services, 
industrial data, important data, core data and data transfer. This in turn gives rise to uncertainty for 
foreign companies as to which legislation is applicable to them. In  addition, there is an overlap 
between the scope of application of the Critical Information Infrastructure Security Protection 
Regulation51 on the one hand and the Multi -Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) 2.052 on the other. The 
uncertainty resulting from this  overlap is exacerbated by the fact that the Regulations on 
Cybersecurity Classification Protection53 have not yet been finalized, and that many regulatory 
requirements originally addressed only to critical information infrastructure operators are being 
expanded to cover Level 3 networks under the MLPS. The EU therefore urges China to distinguish 
between the compliance obligations – especially with regard to product and service procurement – 
applicable to critical information infrastructure on the one hand,  and to networks above MLPS Level  3 
on the other, so as to ensure that these two sets of obligations are distinct.  
2.150.   The Cybersecurity Review Measures54 continue to give rise to considerable uncertainty. The 
triggers for security review of network products and services are defined extremely broadly and the 
reviews themselves have proven to be opaque and potentially lengthy. It also remains unclear what 
exactly the consequences are when a review is failed, in particular for downstream customers. The 
EU reques ts that China notify draft implementing measures of the Cybersecurity Law, including but 
not limited to product and service catalogues for testing and certification, and any sectoral 
implementation to the WTO. The EU remains highly concerned about the Outb ound Data Transfer 
Security Assessment Measures and their implementation. There is uncertainty regarding the triggers 
for assessment, such that they may potentially be triggered by normal cross -border commercial 
activity. The assessment process is proving to be lengthy and burdensome, giving rise to 
considerable uncertainty. The opacity of the assessment process makes it impossible to ascertain 
whether assessments are not conducted in a non -discriminatory manner. Assessments have led to 
de facto rejections of many essential cross -border data transfers for foreign companies. The 
"necessity" criterion for data transfers during the assessment process appears to be interpreted in 
a very narrow manner. The EU is particularly concerned that these measures put fore ign operators 
at a disadvantage compared to domestic ones.  
2.151.   In addition, there are considerable concerns regarding the protection of trade secrets during 
the assessment process. The EU notes the draft Regulations on Regulating and Facilitating Cross -
border  Data Flow55 and requests China to respond to the comments received on these draft 
regulations from the EU and European industry. The EU also continues to be concerned about the 
lack of clarity surrounding the sectoral scope of application of the Measures for Data Security 
Management in Industry and Information Technology (for Trial Implementation). The EU calls on 
China to clarify key legal and regulatory definitions and apply them in as narrow a manner as 
possible. The EU calls on China to clarify the nec essity criterion applied in cross -border data transfer 
security assessments and apply it in as broad a manner as possible. The EU furthermore calls on 
 
47 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 526. 
48 网络安全法  
49 数据安全法  
50 关键信息基础设施的运营者  
51 关键信息基础设施保护 条例 
52 网络安全等级保护制度  
53 网络安全等级 保护条例 , also translated as "Multi-Level Protection Scheme Regulation "  
54 网络安全审查办法  
55 网络数据安全管理条例（征求意见稿  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 44 - 
 
  China to minimise regulatory overlap. In particular, the EU encourages China to define sectoral 
catalogue s of important and core data as soon as possible and ensure that they are aligned. In 
general, the EU calls on China to implement its legislation in a non -discriminatory manner, respecting 
the principles of transparency, proportionality, necessity and tech nology neutrality, and to ensure 
adequate protection of intellectual property.  
2.152.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. As we have said 
in prior TBT Committee meetings, this is a major concern for US companies, given China 's 
intertwined requirements for conformity assessment systems for security testing, technical 
regulations, and a multi -level classification scheme laying out requirements including mandatory 
standards and testing for the purchase of ICT goods across a wide  range of commercial sectors. Our 
numerous, long -standing concerns are clearly laid out in our past statements to this Committee and 
remain unaddressed. We will therefore refer the Committee to our previous statements.  
2.153.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan continues to have 
concerns about the Cybersecurity Law and its subordinate regulations. In September 2022, the draft 
amendment to the Cybersecurity Law was published, and Japan has submitted its comments. Japan 
would like to request that China take them into account. In particular, Article 65, which has been 
changed in the draft amendment, stipulates penalties for critical information infrastructure operators 
who use network products or services that have not undergone or pass ed a "cybersecurity review." 
We understand that the Cybersecurity Review Measures stipulate the procedures, required 
documents, and required number of days for this cybersecurity review. However, some points remain 
unclear, such as the specific scope of ne twork products, which may create unnecessary obstacles to 
the market entry of relevant foreign vendors and service providers. Japan requests that the above 
unclear points be clarified and that the cybersecurity review be operated in a manner consistent wit h 
especially Article 5 of the TBT Agreement. We also have comments regarding the Cross -border Data 
Transfer Security Assessment Measures which came into effect in September 2022, the 
Cybersecurity Multi -Level Protection Scheme which was published for publi c consultation in 2018, 
and the Security Certification Specifications for Cross -border Processing Activities of Personal 
Information which were published in December 2022, as subordinate regulations of the 
Cybersecurity Law or Personal Data Protection Law.   
2.154.   1) Japan submitted comments on the Cross -border Data Transfer Security Assessment 
Measures during the public consultation period. While the Measures define "general data", "critical 
data", and "core data", they do not provide objective and specific crite ria for classification of such 
data. In February 2022, the Information Security Technology Critical Data Identification Guideline 
was submitted for public consultation, and in September 2022, the Information Security Technology 
Network Data Classification and Grading Requirements were submitted for public consultation. Japan 
would like to request that China clarify whether China intends that the classification criteria for 
general data, critical data, and core data will be defined appropriately in these nat ional standards. 
2) Japan submitted its comments on the Cybersecurity Multi -Level Protection Scheme during the 
public consultation period in 2018. We continue to have concerns about the unclear terminology, for 
example, the difference between "network oper ator" and "network service provider," and the 
consistency of national standards referred to in the Cybersecurity Multi -Level Protection Scheme 
with Articles 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement. At the previous TBT Committee meetings, China has 
stated that the pro cess was in the drafting phase. Japan would like to request that China provide 
information on the status of its examination and that a transparent system be established.  
2.155.   3) With regard to the Security Certification Specifications for Cross -border Processi ng 
Activities of Personal Information, these standards require personal data processors who engage in 
cross-border processing activities of personal information to establish a personal data protection 
agency and to assess the impact of personal data protec tion on activities in which personal 
information is to be provided to foreign recipients. These obligations will have a significant impact 
on foreign businesses that have a high need to provide personal data outside of China, and may 
hinder the smooth faci litation of business activities depending on their specific nature. Since 
predictability is important from a perspective of business, Japan would like to request that the 
opinions it has submitted for public consultation be taken into consideration, and th at transparent 
implementation is ensured.  
2.156.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. In past statements 
Australia has noted its concerns with China's Cybersecurity Law and related laws, including the 
Personal Information Protection L aw and Data Security Law. As we set out in Australia's submissions G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 45 - 
 
  to China's consultation on the then proposed laws, we welcomed a number of revisions to both these 
draft laws. Nonetheless, Australia still has concerns around extra -territoriality, trade r etaliation, 
compliance costs for firms and the overall scope. These concerns have still not been addressed. We 
remain concerned about the lack of clarity when it comes to definitions, jurisdiction and a number 
of other fundamental elements. We continue to urge China to take into account the concerns of 
business and Members in the implementation of these measures and development of future 
measures. We note the release of China's draft Regulations on Standardizing and Promoting 
Cross -Border Data Flows, and wi ll closely observe their development and impact on the operating 
environment for businesses. We welcome the opportunity to provide comments on draft measures.  
2.157.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada welcomes the 
Cyberspace Adm inistration of China's recent draft Provisions on Regulating and Facilitating 
Cross -Border Data Transfer; issued on 28 September 2023 for public comments. We encourage 
China to finalize the draft provisions as soon as possible and, in relation to cross -border data 
transfer, to take further actions to: (i) reduce the regulatory compliance burden, and (ii) provide 
increased transparency, for businesses operating in China. In addition, Canada would like to refer 
to its statements at previous TBT Committees and  continues to have significant concerns with China's 
suite of cybersecurity and cryptography/encryption laws, and related implementing regulations. The 
multiplication of implementing measures creates confusion and complicates businesses' ability to 
comply with all of them, due to their unclear scope, interaction and adherence to the principles of 
the TBT Agreement, namely: the Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) Security Protection 
Regulations; the Draft Regulations on Network Data Security; the Measu res on Security Assessment 
of Cross -Border Data Transfer; the Measures on the Standard Contract for the Cross -Border Transfer 
of Personal Information; the Practical Guidance of Cybersecurity Standards —Technical Specifications 
for Certification of Cross -border Handling of Personal Information; and the Implementation Rules of 
Personal Information Protection Certification. Canada would like to urge China to recognize the 
concerns that have been raised by Members on these measures since 2017 and reiterate our 
longstanding request for notifications of these measures.  
2.158.   In response, the representative of China  provided the following statement. Since its 
implementation in 2017, the Cybersecurity Law has provided strong legal protection for safeguarding 
cyberspace sov ereignty, national security, and public interests, and protecting the legitimate rights 
and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations. At the same time, in order to adapt 
to the new situation, the "Administrative Penalty Law", "Data Sec urity Law", "Personal Information 
Protection Law" and other laws have been revised, formulated and implemented in 2021. In order 
to coordinate and connect the Cybersecurity Law with newly implemented laws, improve the legal 
liability system, and further en sure network security, it is planned to amend the Cybersecurity Law. 
At present, relevant Chinese departments are further revising and improving the law based on 
opinions from various parties.  
2.1.4.14   China - Encryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the  Office of State 
Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) (ID 53456) 
2.159.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to reiterate its concerns relating to the Cryptography Law57 and related legislation. Th e EU 
remains concerned about the wide scope of the law. These concerns have already negatively 
impacted business confidence. We note in particular that the Law does not recognize China's 
commitment that the cryptography regulation would only apply to produ cts whose core function is 
providing encryption.58 The EU remains concerned about the Commercial Cryptography 
Administrative Regulations and its implementation, which often goes beyond the Cryptography Law. 
Particular concerns are: the wide scope of the re gulations; the insufficient safeguards for the 
protection of intellectual property; the imposition of pre -market and export controls; unclear 
requirements around testing and certification; turning voluntary certification requirements into de 
facto market a ccess prerequisites; the imposition of national security reviews; the use of domestic 
standards; and the lack of meaningful access to Chinese standards development organisations. The 
EU welcomes that the published final version of the Commercial Cryptograp hy Administrative 
Regulations limits security assessment, and product testing and certification to critical information 
infrastructure operators. However, given the newly introduced Article 41 of these regulations, the 
 
56 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 534. 
57 中华人民共和国密码法 , also translated as 'Encryption Law'.  
58 The so -called "Year 2000 Clarification" by the State Cryptography Administration ( SCA).  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 46 - 
 
  EU is concerned that similar requirem ents may re -appear for other operators in other legislation, in 
particular the Regulations on Cybersecurity Classification Protection, which is still pending release. 
The EU calls on China to ensure that legal and regulatory requirements are non -discrimina tory, do 
not favour specific technologies, do not limit market access and do not lead to forced transfers of 
intellectual property. The EU urges China to guarantee the possibility for foreign companies to 
participate on an equal footing with domestic compa nies in the market for cryptographic products. 
Additionally, the EU urges China to provide effective access, including the right to vote and to lead 
standards drafting, for foreign companies to standardisation bodies, in particular Technical 
Committee 260 and the Cryptography Industry Standardisation Technical Committee (CISTC).  
2.160.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
will support other Members' interventions and refer to its statement on the Cybersecurity  Law.59 
2.161.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan continues to have 
concerns about the Encryption Law, which came into effect as of 1 January 2020. The Encryption 
Law contains an article that prohibits requests for disclosure of source code, etc. We would like to 
request that China prohibit the disclosure requirement of algorithms as well as source code. Japan 
would like to request that the operation of this law not be more trade restrictive than necessary in 
accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and tha t it not impede the activities of foreign 
companies in China or their entry into the Chinese market.  
2.162.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada would like to refer 
to its statements at previous meetings of the TBT Committee with regard to China's Cryptography 
(Encryption) Law and Regulations on the Administration of Commercial Cryptography  
2.163.   In response, the representative of China  provided the following statement. The law came 
into force on 1 January 2020. It clearly stipulates that the governments at all levels and relevant 
competent departments shall follow the principle of non -discrimination, and treat all the 
organizations equa lly including foreign -invested enterprises that engage in commercial cryptography 
research, production, sales, service, import and export, etc. China encourages commercial 
cryptography technical cooperation on a voluntary and commercial basis in the proces s of foreign 
investment. Administrative agencies and their staff are prohibited from forcing any transfer of 
commercial cryptography technology by administrative means.  
2.1.4.15   European Union - Transitional periods for MRLs and international consultations, 
G/TBT/N/EU/682 , G/TBT/N/EU/683 , G/SPS/N/EU/360  (ID 58060) 
2.164.   The representative of Kenya  provided the following statement. Kenya reiterates her previous 
position on this Specific Trade Concern. 1. Kenya raised this as a Specific Trade Concern in th e 
previous TBT Committee meetings and continues to have concerns over the same issue. 2. Kenya 
takes note of the EU's response given in the June 2023 TBT Committee meeting on the Transitional 
periods for MRLs and international consultations. 3. The transit ional periods for MRLs established by 
EU are short and do not take into account the needs and adaptive capacities of developing countries 
which is inconsistent with Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement. The transition periods clearly need to 
be longer. 4. Ken ya therefore calls for a review of the transitional periods. 5. Kenya will also continue 
these discussions in the SPS committee.  
2.165.   The representative of Colombia  provided the following statement. These two topics have 
been raised several times in this Commit tee because no solutions have yet been found as regards 
appropriate transitional periods, nor is it clear how comments submitted by Members in international 
consultations have been taken into account. The problem is exacerbated when maximum residue 
levels and import tolerances are reduced or totally withdrawn and the transitional period to adapt to 
new conditions is completely insufficient for exporters in non -EU countries – hence the pressing need 
to extend such transitional periods to allow time to proper ly adapt to new legislation. It is worth 
remembering that access to international markets is essential to the livelihoods of  thousands of rural 
families, especially since the European Union is one of the top markets for producers of bananas, 
coffee and exo tic fruits, among other products. We therefore call on the European Union to consider 
the comments made before implementing new measures regarding the level of detection for an 
active ingredient, conduct comprehensive risk assessments before establishing a  new maximum 
 
59 China - Cybersecurity Law  (ID 526 ). 
60 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 580. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 47 - 
 
  residue level and ensure that transitional periods are sufficiently long. Otherwise, we will end up in 
a situation with measures that unnecessarily restrict and impede trade because they go beyond what 
is necessary to fulfil the objective bein g pursued. We therefore invite the EU to follow the 
recommendations for good regulatory practices, according to which rules should be based on clear 
and objective information, and open dialogue with stakeholders, transparency and reduction of 
market distor tions are promoted, to the benefit of not only developing countries but also the 
multilateral trading system, which has already been hit hard by this and other measures.  
2.166.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica reiterat es its 
support for this trade concern and repeats its request for an extension of the transition periods for 
compliance with the new tolerances established for agrochemical inputs. The approval for their use 
has not been renewed and the impact that they ha ve on agricultural production in our country and 
others around the world is very significant. The usual period granted by the EU, around six months, 
still does not provide enough time to replace an agrochemical being used. As a result, there is a 
need to a ssess the possibility of longer transition periods for fruit and vegetable producing and 
exporting countries . 
2.167.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
continues to have concerns with the European Union's ( EU) practices related to the reduction of 
pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs). We have, in several meetings of this Committee, noted 
that following the restricted approval or non -renewal of many active substances in the EU, the EU 
has subsequently redu ced or withdrawn MRLs, including those based on Codex limits or import 
tolerances, without finalizing a risk assessment. The United States continues to request that the EU 
follow science - and risk -based processes, and that the EU complete science -based ris k assessments 
based on a full body of evidence, prior to reducing or withdrawing pesticide MRLs. The United States 
has also taken note of recent EU MRL reductions to levels well below the EU's current, default limit 
of determination (LOD) of 0.01 ppm. The United States is concerned that EU's efforts to lower MRLs 
to levels ranging from 0.001 ppm to 0.005 ppm may be more trade restrictive than necessary to 
meet the EU's human health objectives. The United States is concerned that such reductions to MRLs 
can have negative effects on agricultural trade and can create trade disruptions from inaccurate 
residue analytical results, cross -contamination, or other reasons outside of a farmer's or exporter's 
control.  
2.168.   The United States has also previously shared concer ns regarding the European Union's 
enforcement of MRLs. We ask the European Union to consider alternate and more flexible approaches 
to the enforcement of changes to MRLs. A more flexible approach can support our shared goals of 
enhancing global food securi ty in the least trade restrictive manner possible while still protecting 
consumers. We request the EU extend the transition periods for MRLs where the EU has not identified 
risks to consumers based on dietary exposure based on completed risk assessments. T he United 
States, along with many third country producers, have expressed the need for lawfully produced 
food products to have sufficient time to move through the channels of trade, including products with 
long shelf lives. The EU's policy of enforcing MRL s at the time of importation for imported goods 
rather than at the time of production, as currently applied to the EU's domestic agricultural products, 
causes disruptions in trade destined for the EU market. The United States requests that MRLs for all 
products, both domestic and imported, be enforced based on the MRLs in place at the date of 
application of the pesticide. This would resolve the inconsistency of enforcement of MRLs for 
agricultural goods produced inside and outside the EU.  
2.169.   The United States  also expects the EU to take WTO Member comments into account prior to 
finalizing its draft measures. The United States has observed that the period of time between the 
WTO comment submission period and European Commission voting on draft regulations on ac tive 
substance renewals and MRLs can be brief. We look forward to discussing with the EU the possibility 
of finding additional opportunities for third countries to provide data and other analysis in advance 
of the formal WTO notification comment period. Th is would facilitate the ability of the EU to take a 
full body of available evidence into account prior to finalizing an MRL decision. Lastly, we ask the EU 
to retain existing MRL levels while import tolerances are under consideration. Recent EU regulation 
states that import tolerance applications will be considered on a case -by-case basis dependent upon 
meeting its definition of "environmental criteria." However, the lack of predictability that results from 
the consideration of import tolerance requests on a "case -by-case" basis unnecessarily increases 
uncertainty for farmers globally and limits farmers' ability to protect crops from pests and diseases.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 48 - 
 
  2.170.   The representative of India provided the following statement. India would join the concerned 
raised by oth er WTO Members on the international consultation processes and planned transition 
periods related to the MRL setting procedures as adopted by the European Union (EU). In previous 
reply, EU has failed to address the concerns raised by the members. The EU ha s reiterated its existing 
processes without considering how it plans to modify its processes to take into account the concerns 
raised by the Members. India requests EU to address substantively the concerns of the Members.  
2.171.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Maximum residue limits 
(MRLs) regulations were developed to mitigate unnecessary trade barriers. However, these 
measures can unintentionally become unnecessarily trade restrictive and impede trade when a 
country imposes a sudde n MRL deletion without giving its trade partners sufficient time to adjust. 
To that end, Canada would like to reiterate its concern with the EU's approach to transition periods 
for MRLs. Canada is of the view that the EU's approach does not acknowledge the  reality of 
international agricultural supply chains such as the time required to ship product, multi -year 
inventory and extensive shelf life. At a time when ensuring food security is of high concern, Canada 
urges the EU to extend transition periods for MR Ls for its trading partners taking into account the 
need for exporters to adapt to new requirements.  
2.172.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil supports the concerns 
raised under STC 580 and would like to refer to our previous st atements on this agenda item. We 
respectfully bring to the attention of the EU its obligations under Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement, 
which relate to the establishment of a reasonable interval between the publication of technical 
regulations and their en try into force, except in cases of urgent problems of safety, health, 
environmental protection or national security. Brazil stresses the importance of assuring reasonable 
transition periods - between the publication of technical regulations and their entry  into force - 
regarding MRLs. Transitional periods should also be compatible with the production processes, so as 
to allow producers – and especially small farmers – to adapt to the new regulations.  
2.173.   The representative of Ecuador  provided the following stat ement. Ecuador is extremely 
concerned about the "transition periods" granted by the EU for implementing its measures relating 
to the non -renewal of the approval of substances and the reduction of tolerances. In order to 
establish reasonable transition peri ods, it is necessary to consider harvesting periods and the times 
when agrochemicals are applied. Farmers need more time to adapt to MRL requirements, as it takes 
at least 10 years on average to develop or register a new phytosanitary pest -control product,  and 
this is when new alternatives have already been identified. We therefore urge the EU to consider an 
adequate period – at least 5 years – to enable developing countries to adjust their production to the 
new conditions established in the European regula tions. The extension for applying the measures 
has also been requested given that their implementation makes it necessary to find alternative 
measures that do not affect the price of agricultural products, and because of the need to minimize 
the impact of the reduction of agricultural production in the country, as it is important to bear in 
mind that according to data in the study carried out by the United States (USITC - Global Economic 
Impact of Missing and Low Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels), it is est imated that the strategies 
applied by the EU, in a middle -of-the-road scenario, would lead to the prices of agricultural products 
increasing by around 50% and a 4% decline in global agricultural production, which would have a 
huge impact on the country's e conomy.  
2.174.   It is clear that the regulations on the prohibition of the use and the withdrawal of the 
compounds are of an internal nature for EU member countries; however, bearing in mind that the 
next step is to review and modify the MRLs for these compounds, which, in some cases, involves 
reduction to the level of detection, this would mean that the restriction on their use would also be 
reflected in exporting countries. This leads Ecuador to urge the EU to consider the comments of third 
countries before resol ving to reduce the minimum detection level of an active ingredient, particularly 
when it is key for the control of pests or diseases typical of tropical and subtropical climates, with 
conditions that differ from those of the European region. Ecuador is awa re that the EU allows its 
farmers to request emergency authorizations so that, in certain special situations, they can use 
active substances that have already been banned in the European market. For Ecuador, it is 
important to know whether, where emergency  authorizations are issued for the use of such 
substances, EU member countries have notified and justified the application of MRLs that differ from 
those established in the EU's existing MRL regulations. We would also like to know how the EU 
monitors wheth er the member State that has received an emergency authorization for the use of 
prohibited substances is complying with the existing MRL regulations and how it verifies, in the case G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 49 - 
 
  of non -compliance with the MRL regulations, that the products containing t he prohibited substances 
have not been marketed in other EU member States.  
2.175.   The representative of Argentina  provided the following statement. We would like to thank 
the delegations that included this concern on the Committee's agenda and we would be gratefu l if 
Argentina's support could be put on record. We once again reiterate our concern about the EU policy 
of removing import tolerances for substances that are no longer used in the EU, which is clearly a 
more restrictive measure than necessary and goes bey ond the acceptable level of risk set by the 
EU. The approach taken by the EU to establish transitional periods for MRLs is inappropriate and 
does not take into account the needs and adaptive capacities of third countries. The transition period 
clearly need s to be longer, and Argentina therefore once again calls for a review of the transition 
periods.  
2.176.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Uruguay wishes to thank 
Costa  Rica, Colombia, the United States and Kenya for including this it em on the agenda. Firstly, my 
delegation reiterates the call for Members to take regulatory decisions based on internationally 
accepted standards, or to present conclusive scientific evidence when it is strictly necessary to 
deviate from those standards to  meet their legitimate aims, in accordance with the relevant 
WTO Agreements. On this matter, considering harvest seasons, the stages at which plant protection 
products are applied, and the time needed to develop and register alternative substances, the 
transitional periods established by the EU in the regulations amending the MRLs for active substances 
are, in practice, mostly insufficient to make the necessary adjustments to production and to ensure 
that agricultural products, in particular processed or fr ozen products, comply with the new, amended 
MRLs. Any changes should be gradual, and a reasonable period of time should be granted in order 
to raise awareness in the production sector and among technical advisers, and to make available 
effective substitute s for the active ingredients for which the MRLs are to be reduced. It is 
inappropriate to make abrupt changes to the rules in the middle of a harvest season, considering 
the impact this may have on the marketing of the affected products. In this regard, Ur uguay urges 
the EU, when taking decisions to reduce MRLs for active substances used in agricultural production 
by other Members, to provide sufficient transitional periods to make the relevant adjustments, 
reaffirming that more than six months are needed t o adapt. Lastly, Uruguay reiterates the concerns 
expressed regarding how the EU's  international consultation process on MRLs works in practice and 
urges that the EU delegation respond to the requests made by Colombia, Paraguay, Guatemala and 
Uruguay at the  March 2023 meeting of the TBT  Committee for further information on how, and to 
what extent, the EU has taken into account the comments of other Members in its regulatory process, 
and provide examples of instances where the EU has modified its original pro posals in response to 
comments or information received from third  countries.  
2.177.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. As with STC ID 393, we 
urge the European Union to reassess its approach and, where MRL reductions are duly justifi ed, 
provide adequate transition periods that take into account the realities of the production processes 
and the geography, including distances, of its trading partners. With regard to the international 
consultations, we thank the European Union for the no tification of the measures. However, we repeat 
our question to the European Union about how the comments submitted by Members at different 
stages of the consultation process are taken into account. We would also like to know whether there 
are cases in whic h regulatory changes or adjustments have been introduced using the information 
submitted by stakeholders during the consultation process. In many cases, the limited time between 
the end of the comment period and the approval of the drafts without amendment s leads us to 
believe that these notifications and comment periods are mere formalities, and comments are not 
intended to be, and are in fact not, taken into account.  
2.178.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The European Union would like to thank the WTO Members for raising this issue. The EU has provided 
detailed information on transitional periods for Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) at previous TBT 
Committees, since March 2019 until June 2023. The EU considers that measures lowering MRLs due 
to concerns for human health, fall under the remit of the SPS Committee and should be discussed 
in that context. Nevertheless, we would like to also inform Members of the TBT Committee that all 
measures taken on MRLs in the EU are based on a scientific risk assessment carried out by both an 
evaluating EU member State and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and using the most 
up-to-date science and evidence available. Obviously, science is under continuous development wi th 
new data and risk assessment methodologies becoming available. Therefore, the EU has the 
procedures in place to review any measure at any moment, if this is necessary. Contrary to measures G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 50 - 
 
  lowering MRLs, all measures concerning non -approval or restricti on of active substances used in 
plant protection products in the EU and a limited number of very specific measures lowering MRLs 
due to environmental issues of global concern (e.g. clothianidin and thiamethoxam) are notified to 
the TBT Committee. These mea sures do not have direct consequences on SPS related matters. In 
the interest of transparency and, further to requests by some Members, when notifying these 
measures under the WTO/TBT  notification system, the EU additionally informs the SPS Committee 
of the submis sion of those notifications.  
2.179.   In practice, both Committees are informed about draft acts on the non -approval or restriction 
of approval of an active substance in the EU. However, comments should only be submitted via the 
TBT notification system in those ca ses. The EU would like to point out in this context that the 
commenting deadlines are always respected and that the comments received within those deadlines 
are duly taken into account in the EU's decision -making process. In the interest of efficient 
proce edings in both Committees and, in line with the respective Agreements, the EU would invite 
Members to raise matters on approvals of active substances and measures dealing with MRLs in view 
of environmental issues of global concern exclusively in the TBT Co mmittee, while matters relating 
to MRLs for pesticides due to human health concerns should be raised exclusively in the SPS 
Committee. Issues concerning transitional periods for MRLs should therefore generally be raised at 
the Committee to which the origin al notification was made, which would be, in most cases, the SPS 
Committee.  
2.180.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. I would simply like to 
thank the European Union for its comments on how the comments received by the appropriate 
channels are taken into account, and to reiterate that it would be useful to have information on how 
these comments are taken into account and examples of when regulatory changes or adjustments 
have been made on the basis of those comments.  
2.1.4.16   European Union - Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic 
Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR), G/TBT/N/EU/71/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/72 , 
G/TBT/N/EU/72/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EU/845  (ID 59461) 
2.181.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. China has very specific 
suggestions to EU's regulation on medical devices. 1. It is recommended to clarify the regulatory 
requirements of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and original design manufacturer (ODM), 
and issue relevant guidance for OEM and ODM as soon as possible. OEM and ODM are effective 
modes for technical exchanges between enterprises and for market promotion, as well as well -
established production modes with technology and management systems. However, the EU has not 
expressly mentioned the relevant regulatory requirements of OEM under MDR, nor has it issued any 
relevant guidance. At present, different notified bodies have different regulatory requirements for 
OEM and ODM, which causes great troubles and  obstacles for manufacturers.  
2.182.   2. It is recommended to revise the current MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 guidance or issue MDCG 
clinical evaluation guidance under the MDR regulatory system in order to provide systematic and 
specific guidance for clinical evaluation: ( 1) Specific guidance on the clinical evaluation of medical 
devices to which MDR 61 (10) applies, such as determination of the suitability of this pathway of a 
medical device and identification of clinical endpoints (especially safety endpoints), etc. (2) S pecific 
guidance for clinical evaluation of well -established technologies (WET) devices, such as the 
determination of mature technology devices (including the application for the WET list, selection 
review, and release mechanism), the significance of non -Class III/non -implantable WET devices, 
and the clinical data requirements for such devices, etc. (3) Specific guidance on the requirement 
that "the device uses the SAME materials or substances in contact with the same human tissues or 
body fluids for …" in point 3 of Annex XIV to MDR. For example, where "materials or substances shall 
be the SAME", what level of similarity does it refer to? Can different requirements be established for 
different types of devices? (4) Requirements for high -quality post -market clinical follow -up (PMCF) 
survey, for example, whether ethical review is required, and the requirements and prerequisites for 
conducting a high -quality PMCF survey for different categories of medical devices; (5) Explicit 
requirements and exemptions for po st-marketing clinical tracking (PMCF) for different categories of 
medical devices. (6) Application of real -world data (such as device registry) and clinical data trial 
outside the EU in clinical evaluation; (7) How to calculate and present the benefit -risk ratio in data 
analysis; (8) Contents and requirements of clinical development plan (CDP); (9) Definition of 
 
61 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 594. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 51 - 
 
  "undesirable side -effects", as well as the association and difference between undesirable side -effects 
and clinical risks; (10) Definition and sign ificance of benchmark device. 3. It is recommended the 
EU official could establish a consultation channel to respond to common consultation questions from 
manufacturers, and other relevant parties regarding the implementation of MDR regulations, serving 
as the corresponding regulatory basis for reducing the time of product certification and promoting 
access efficiency.  
2.183.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan appreciates the 
implementation of Regulation (EU) 2023/607 revising the MDR and IVDR on the extension of 
transitional measures and the removal of distribution deadlines. However, there are issues to be 
addressed in the MDR and IVDR as described below, and we request the following improvements. 
1. MDR. The MDR requires rigorous  clinical evaluation assessment even for relatively low -risk 
Class I, IIa and IIb medical devices. However, this may be more trade -restrictive than necessary to 
achieve legitimate objectives. In order to ensure that the regulations do not become more 
trade -restrictive than necessary, Japan continues to request that the EU simplify the requirements 
of the assessment similar to the Japanese pharmaceutical certification and the US 510(k) 
regulations, taking into account the promotion of international harmoniza tion in regulations. For 
example, clinical evaluation could be simplified for medical devices with a medium or low risk using 
technologies that have already been proven on the market. 2. IVDR. The (EU) 2023/607, dated 
15 March  2023, enables companies to su pply devices that meet certain conditions. However, Japan 
is deeply concerned that the conformity assessments for many manufacturers will not be completed 
by the deadline. Therefore, Japan would like to request that the transition period for the IVDR be 
re-extended until at least the end of 2027 or the end of 2028 or beyond, as was done for the MDR.  
2.184.   3. MDR and IVDR. 3.1 Japan welcomes the publication of guidance in line with the MDCG 
Guidance Publication Plan. However, Japanese manufacturers have informed us that the requirement 
to conform to guidance without a transition period is a factor in the prolonged conformity 
assessments. As we requested at the previous TBT Committee meetings, we continue to ask that 
public consultation be carried out prior to the publication of MDCG guidance, that newly published 
MDCG guidance has a transition period of at least one year, and that MDCG guidance be used for 
reviews by notified bodies after the transition period has elapsed. We appreciate the publication of 
guidance MDCG 2022 -21 on Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs) on post -marketing surveillance; 
however, this guidance states that guidance on trend analysis will be issued separately, but it has 
not yet been issued. We request the guidance on trend analysis to be issued promptly as it is 
necessary to build the process for the implementation of the PSURs. 3.2 In some cases of conformity 
assessments by notified bodies, the need for conformity may be required even though the 
harmonized standards of MDR and IVDR are pu blished in the EU Official Journal immediately before 
the conformity assessments. We request that an appropriate transition period be established for 
harmonized standards in accordance with Article 5.9 of the TBT Agreement.  
2.185.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia refers to its 
previous statements made in the TBT Committee and notes the recent decision by the European 
Parliament to extend transition timeframes for the European Union Medical Device Regulations (EU 
MDR). Aus tralia welcomes this extension as it will allow additional time and increased capacity to 
access appropriately designated notified bodies to transition medical devices to the new regulatory 
framework. The EU MDR impacts both Australian manufacturers access ing European markets, but 
also impacts access to Australian markets given common reliance on European conformity 
assessment certification to support marketing approval in Australia. We still remain concerned about 
misalignment of components of the EU MDR w ith international guidance for certain medical devices 
which may result in trade barriers and burden to manufacturers who also supply their products to 
other countries including Australia. Australia also reiterates concern about the European shift to the 
European Medical Device Nomenclature (EMDN) currently being developed, diverging from the 
internationally developed Global Medical Device Nomenclature (GMDN). Australia is concerned about 
the issues this may create for a globally harmonized Unique Device Id entifier (UDI) system resulting 
from use of EMDN in Europe, in contrast to use of GMDN in a range of other jurisdictions. Australia 
continues to be concerned about the absence of effective arrangements for interoperability (such as 
a mapping of EMDN and GM DN codes), given the potential for duplication for industry, and impact 
on information sharing in monitoring and responding to safety concerns for patients.  
2.186.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU than ks the WTO Members for their comments on the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and 
in vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR). As announced in previous Committee G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 52 - 
 
  meetings, the MDR officially entered into force on 26 May 2021. It is important to u nderline that the 
shift between the Directives to the MDR is a gradual one, facilitated by transition periods that allow 
for medical devices in compliance with the Directives to continue to be in circulation until May 2024, 
in parallel with MDR certified d evices. As regards the IVDR and as of May 2022, a staggered set of 
transition periods for IVDs was proposed. A measure explaining the adapted transitional provisions 
was also notified to the TBT Committee. The length of the transition periods depends on th e risk 
class of devices, with shorter transition periods for higher risk devices and longer periods for lower 
risk ones. One of the revolutionary changes introduced by the two new regulations include fit for 
purpose classification rules, reinforced notifie d body requirements and higher clinical evidence 
thresholds. These changes were deemed necessary in order to respond to a number of failures in 
the system and prevent future crises putting patients at serious risk. Regarding notified bodies, we 
are glad to  report that their number is constantly growing. As of today, we now have 40 MDR 
designated Notified Bodies and 12 Notified Bodies under the IVDR. With the amendments to extend 
the transition period for MDR and IVDR compliance, the EU believes that the sit uation has improved, 
and that notified body capacity has been alleviated as well. Nevertheless, the preparedness of 
medical device manufacturers remains essential and working towards early compliance will be 
essential to avoid bottlenecks in the system.  
2.187.   On the question of SME access to notified bodies, the EU has put in place a number of non -
legislative measures in order to encourage availability of notified body capacity to deal with new 
applications as well as applications submitted by SMEs. Continuous m onitoring of these measures is 
ongoing and frequent discussions with notified bodies entail the assessment of those activities. On 
Nomenclature, the EU maintains the need to separate the discussions from those related to Unique 
Device Identification (UDI).  While the UDI system used in the EU is based on internationally agreed 
principles, the Nomenclature, also known as the language of use is different. This was a decision 
taken after careful assessment and consideration. The EU would like to stress, once ag ain, that the 
EU's choice for creating the European Medical Device Nomenclature has been based on the need for 
a sensibly structured nomenclature that is transparent, open, fully accessible for the public, and 
downloadable for free. There are currently no other nomenclature systems offering those 
characteristics. The EU maintains that the choice of language and dictionary for medical devices i.e., 
the nomenclature does not constitute a barrier to trade. The EU is fully determined to ensure that 
the new syst em provides a higher level of patient protection and counts on trade partners to 
encourage their manufacturers to meet these new requirements to ensure trade continuity.  
2.1.4.17   European Union - Non-renewal of the approval of the active substance 
mancozeb, G/TBT/N/EU/712 ; G/TBT/N/EU/797 , G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1  (ID 62762) 
2.188.   The representative of Kenya  provided the following statement. Kenya reiterates her previous 
position on this Specific Trade Concern on the Non -renewal of the approval of the active substance 
Mancozeb. 1. Kenya raised this as a Specific Trade Concern in the previous TBT Committee mee ting 
and continues to have concerns over the same issue. 2. Kenya takes note of the EU's response given 
in the June 2023 TBT Committee meeting on nonrenewal of the approval of the active substance 
Mancozeb. 3. The non -renewal of the approval of the active substance Mancozeb and EUs response 
on the restrictive use of Mancozeb under the EU Chemicals legislation (REACH) is likely to be 
discriminatory. This will restrict Kenya's products from accessing the EU market which is deemed to 
be inconsistent with Artic le 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 4. The active substance Mancozeb is an 
important molecule in pest control in Kenya. Mancozeb containing products are used in the 
agriculture sector for the control of a wide range of fungal diseases found in the tropics. Its us e is 
critical in the flower industry, which is a leading sector in terms of the Kenya's GDP and also employs 
thousands of Kenyans thus impacting livelihoods.  
2.189.   5. Mancozeb has been an important molecule in relation to fungal pathogens control on a 
number of  vegetable crops including French beans, potato, tomato, onions among others. 6. There 
are no available alternatives to offer multisite fungicide for control of early and late blight on the 
above crops, which cause annual yield losses of up to 60 -70% on th e 4.5-5.5 million metric tonnes 
(USD 1.9 Billion) of potato, 560,000 metric tonnes (USD 333 Million) of tomato respectively produced 
in Kenya for local consumption. 7. Mancozeb has a multi -site contact activity which is a key aspect 
for resistance manageme nt. 8. Kenya wishes to raise this STC since the measure is deemed to be 
more trade restrictive than necessary contrary to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 9. The proposed 
measure would be deemed to be in contravention of Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement which 
 
62 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 627. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 53 - 
 
  requires that "Members shall, in the preparation and application of technical regulations, standards 
and conformity assessment procedures, take account of the special development, financial and trade 
needs of developing country Members, with a view t o ensuring that such technical regulations, 
standards and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to exports 
from developing country Members". 10. Kenya requests the European Union to review and withdraw 
this Regulation.  
2.190.   The re presentative of Colombia  provided the following statement. Colombia is aware of the 
importance of foods free from excess pesticide residues that comply with international safety 
recommendations. However, the ban on active substances such as mancozeb, cloth ianidin, 
thiamethoxam and chlorothalonil, and the subsequent non -renewal of the approval of these 
substances, are hitting our country's agricultural export sector hard. While our health authorities are 
going to great lengths with the productive sectors to explore alternatives to meet the requirements, 
the search for substances to replace those that have been banned or whose approval is being 
modified requires time and investment, especially when potential alternatives are also becoming 
scarcer owing to chan ges to phytosanitary regulations in the European Union. A typical example of 
this, but not the only one, is the limited availability of an alternative to mancozeb, on account of 
similar substances, such as chlorothalonil, being banned in the European marke t. In this context, it 
is vital that the non -renewal or modification of approval for active substances takes into account 
production processes and methods in countries that could be affected. Failing to do so would violate 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement,  which stipulates that technical regulations shall not be more 
trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. Failing to do so also seems to violate 
Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement, which states that account should be taken of the spe cial financial 
and trade needs of developing countries, with a view to ensuring that regulations, standards and 
conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to exports. In this regard, 
we agree with arguments presented in this Commi ttee expressing the need for the European Union 
to bring maximum residue levels into line with the levels established within the framework of the 
Codex Alimentarius and to treat farmers in third countries no less favourably than it does European 
farmers. W e therefore invite the European Union to seek out and support solutions that would allow 
our agricultural producers to continue meeting the European demand for food, to the benefit of not 
only developing countries but also the multilateral trading system, which has already been hit hard 
by this and other measures.  
2.191.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. We thank the delegations 
that support this trade concern and echo their statements. Costa Rica once again wishes to reiterate 
its concern regarding the draft Implementing Regulation notified by the EU in G/SPS/N/EU/384 , 
under which approval for the use of mancozeb would not be renewed. We will keep this concern on 
the TBT Committee's agenda and will support the proponents of t his concern given this measure's 
impact on our exporting agricultural sector and small products.  
2.192.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to convey 
once again its concerns regarding the non -renewal of the approval of  the active substance mancozeb, 
according to European TBT notification G/TBT/N/EU/712 , and present a few requests. As previously 
stated, mancozeb is a substance whose use is approved for many different crops by the Brazilian 
Health Regulatory Agency.  It is used as a crop protection additive, intended to increase the 
effectiveness of other fungicides, minimizing resistance, and prolonging the life cycle of other 
molecules. It is particularly important for the management of fungicide resistance to contr ol soybean 
rust. MRLs for soybeans in Brazil are set in 0.3 mg/kg. Around 11% of the soy produced in Brazil is 
exported to the EU. Therefore, restrictions on mancozeb will significantly impact the income of 
Brazilian farmers. In light of the insufficient t ransitional period granted by the EU, such crops could 
not have their treatments changed in time for exportation to the EU market before the entry into 
force of the regulation. Brazil regrets that European authorities have not established transition 
period s that were adequate to the production cycle of the affected crops. The availability of an 
alternative to mancozeb in the short to medium term is also limited by the fact that other substances 
of similar use have already been banned in the European market,  such as chlorothalonil. In this 
sense, Brazil asks the EU to align MRLs with limits established under the framework of Codex 
Alimentarius, to consider less trade -restrictive alternatives that would also safeguard its legitimate 
policy objective and to gra nt a treatment for Brazilian farmers no less favourable than that granted 
to European farmers. Finally, Brazil would like to request any available updates on this matter, 
considering that the scientific opinion on MRLs for dithiocarbamates presented conclu des that all 
MRL proposals derived by EFSA are indicative and still require further analysis by risk managers.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 54 - 
 
  2.193.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. This concern and the 
non-renewal of the approval of other substances were alread y discussed extensively both in this 
Committee and in the SPS Committee because of the subsequent reduction in the MRLs. Paraguay 
therefore refers to its previous statements and reiterates its cross -cutting concern with regard to 
the European Union's decis ion to not renew the approval of these substances without a proper risk 
analysis and without complying with scientific principles. The arguments in favour of the use of this 
substance have not changed either, and these are shared by the European Union, or at least by 
several of its members, who consider them sufficient to provide emergency authorizations. We 
therefore request that the statement made by my delegation at the March meeting be recorded in 
the minutes. I would like to reiterate that Paraguay and  other Members have raised a series of 
questions about this and other measures. In Paraguay's case, these questions will be recorded in 
the minutes, since they were mentioned in our statement at the March meeting. We hope that the 
European Union can provid e full responses. I believe that Paraguay and several other Members have 
been showing flexibility in terms of time by shortening our interventions in the room. However, if 
we continue to receive insufficient responses, we will have to revert to the practic e of reading full 
statements and adding new matters to unaddressed questions and concerns, which will mean that, 
before long, we will need a whole week just to discuss trade concerns.  
2.194.   Statement from March 2023 meeting, in full.63 There are some new develop ments that we 
would like to discuss, but have yet to receive answers to the questions we have submitted. This is 
the same statement that I delivered at the previous meeting, hoping for different results and full 
answers from the EU to the questions submitt ed in the SPS Committee and in this one. This concern 
and the non -renewal of the approval of other substances were already discussed extensively both in 
this Committee and in the SPS Committee because of the subsequent reduction in the MRLs. 
Paraguay there fore refers to its previous statements and reiterates its cross -cutting concern with 
regard to the EU's decision not to renew the approval of these substances without a proper risk 
analysis and without complying with scientific principles.  
2.195.   The arguments in  favour of the use of this substance have not changed either, and these 
are shared by the EU, or at least by several of its members, who consider them sufficient to provide 
emergency authorizations, as follows: - the lack of available alternatives to prote ct against some 
pests; - the importance of mancozeb to avoid problems with resistance and, in general; - the 
production and financial losses caused by some pests that only this substance can combat effectively. 
With regard to these emergency authorizations , we have already heard the EU say that the measures 
are only in place for 120 days, but we recall that there is no limit to the number of times that they 
can be renewed.  
2.196.   We see, for example, how many of the emergency authorizations for mancozeb are given 
for approximately the same annual period (roughly June to September or October), probably linked 
to the threshold of humidity and warm temperatures that increase the prevalence of some of the 
fungi that are effectively and safely controlled by substances l ike mancozeb. Imagine, how much 
more often these thresholds are reached in subtropical countries like Paraguay with climatic 
conditions very different from those of the European Union. We have also heard the EU explain that 
emergency authorizations are not  intended to facilitate trade, unlike import tolerances, but we have 
not received answers to repeated written questions on the specific mechanisms used to grant 
emergency authorizations and to ensure that products with temporary MRLs are kept within the 
borders of the authorizing member, and on the consistency between these authorizations and alleged 
concerns about the use of these substances. Here we note not only the discrimination that exists in 
practice between EU producers and trading partners but also  an inconsistency between the legitimate 
objective pursued and the actions taken to achieve it.¨  
2.197.   Furthermore, we have heard that, although emergency authorizations are granted by EU 
members, the EFSA reviews them if it considers that they are not properly justified. However, we 
note that even in cases where the EFSA considers that an emergency authorization is not properly 
justified, there are no restrictions on new emergency authorizations, which continue to be approved 
by the same members for the control of the same pests on the same crops for which the EFSA 
concluded that the use of the substance was not properly justified. Paraguay shares the objectives 
that the EU seeks to meet with these policies but does not share its adopted method for attaining 
them because it is not based on conclusive scientific evidence and does not consider less 
trade -restrictive options or valid alternatives for hazard control, which do not exist in this case, as 
 
63 G/TBT/M/89 , paras. 2.223 -2.227.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 55 - 
 
  the EU agrees by granting emergency authorizations to its members.  We reiterate our question on 
how the Members concerned by the process can participate in the analysis that the EFSA is 
conducting on the MRL for mancozeb; on the current status of the analysis, since an outcome was 
expected in the first half of 2022; and on how comments submitted by Members will be taken into 
account.  
2.198.   We are also seeking detailed responses to the queries regarding emergency authorizations 
that were raised in the SPS Committee and were not satisfactorily answered with the statement that 
it "is the responsibility of the EU member States", who are also WTO Members in their own right and 
to whom we should address questions if we receive no responses. Lastly, we cannot fail to recognize 
the extraordinary efforts that the EU is making in the bila teral/plurilateral and multilateral spheres, 
including through dual notifications (TBT/SPS). However, what my country and my country's 
producers need is not a unilateral explanation of the measures but a frank dialogue that allows the 
legitimate demands we  are making to be met while at the same time achieving the EU's legitimate 
objectives in the least trade -restrictive way possible, in compliance with the rules and principles of 
the multilateral trading system.  
2.199.   The representative of Argentina  provided the following statement. We would like to thank 
the delegations that included this specific trade concern on the Committee's agenda. Argentina 
continues to share the general concern over the hazard -based approach used by the EU as regards 
regulating pesticides , without identification of risk, which is an unnecessary technical barrier to 
trade. In the case of mancozeb, this is a broad -spectrum fungicide used for growing fruits, 
vegetables and extensive crops. Although Argentina shares the EU's concern over stren gthening the 
protection of human health and the environment, we would once again like to underline the 
importance of complying with Articles  2.2 and 2.4 of the TBT Agreement to ensure that technical 
regulations are not more trade -restrictive than necessary  to fulfil a legitimate objective. We are 
particularly concerned by the number of substances banned by the EU Commission, which has been 
increasing with each passing day. This situation may have serious consequences for various WTO 
Members, particularly de veloping countries, whose populations and economies are highly dependent 
on agricultural exports. It is therefore crucial for the EU to use a risk assessment approach in the 
analysis of these regulatory changes and to have conclusive scientific studies to determine the 
various aspects that may affect human health and the environment.  
2.200.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Mancozeb is an active 
substance that is authorized and routinely used in many countries, such as Uruguay, where it is used 
safely to control diseases and major pests in various products in the domestic fruit and vegetable 
sector, such as apples, pears and citrus fruits. In that connection, we share the concerns and 
requests expressed by other delegations, particular ly in view of the possibility that, as a result of 
the ongoing dithiocarbamate review process, the EU will significantly reduce the corresponding MRLs, 
even to the limit of detection, without having any conclusive scientific evidence that substantiates 
such a decision in line with the SPS Agreement of the WTO. In this regard, we would appreciate an 
update on the status of the review process for these substances, including the predicted date for the 
presentation of the EFSA scientific opinion on dithiocarbam ates, as well as the expected time frame 
for any notification to the SPS Committee regarding the relevant MRLs. In this context, like other 
Members, Uruguay recalls the importance of taking due account of international standards, 
guidelines and recommendat ions, and scientific information produced within the framework of 
international standard -setting bodies recognized in the WTO, such as the Codex Alimentarius; the 
obligation to open consultation periods that may serve as effective instances of regulatory 
cooperation between Members; and the need to grant reasonable transition periods if an amendment 
to the MRLs is finally decided.  
2.201.   The representative of Ecuador  provided the following statement. Ecuador wishes to reiterate 
its concern regarding notification G /TBT/N/EU/712 on the non -renewal of the approval of the active 
substance mancozeb. Mancozeb is a fungicide used throughout the world for a wide range of strategic 
crops, many of which are produced by Ecuador and imported into the European Union (EU). This 
compound is crucial for pest management because, due to the tropical climate in countries like 
Ecuador, pest behaviour follows patterns that are very different from those prevailing in countries 
with four seasons such as those in the EU. Prohibiting the us e of mancozeb could have a very 
significant economic impact on small -, medium -, and large -scale producers in Ecuador, as well as 
on consumers in the EU. In Ecuador's view, it is vital that studies concerning the renewal of active 
substances be based on sci entific evidence and conclusive data, and not only on the precautionary 
principle.  Ecuador therefore urges the EU to take into consideration the relevant scientific G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 56 - 
 
  information emanating from international specialized agencies recognized by the WTO, such a s the 
Codex Alimentarius, showing that mancozeb does not produce adverse effects in humans, 
experimental animals or wild life at concentrations below those at which effects would be expected 
as a result of systemic toxicity.  
2.202.   EFSA decided not to renew the approval of the active ingredient mancozeb, classifying it in 
"toxic for reproduction" category 1B, and considers it to be an endocrine disruptor in humans and 
non-target species; however, given the reproductive toxicity hazard profile of mancozeb, it would 
be more appropriate to classify it in "toxic for reproduction" category 2, or even to refrain from 
classifying it. Furthermore, the EU has notified in document G/TBT/N/EU/996 of 20  July 2023, the 
non-renewal of the approval of the active substance me tiram . Like mancozeb, Ecuador is concerned 
that substances belonging to the same group are being banned for use in the EU, which will trigger 
a reduction in their MRLs. For these reasons, Ecuador calls upon the EU to consider alternative 
measures that are less trade -restrictive, given that the few options for multi -site fungicide control 
(chlorothalonil) are being restricted and alternative substances that enable existing trade to continue 
have not been identified; to base its measures on conclusive studies  and not on the precautionary 
principle alone; and to establish adequate transition periods for the registration of alternative 
substances, in view of the current shortage of tools available to control pests.  
2.203.   The representative of Panama  provided the follo wing statement. I wish to thank the 
delegations that placed this concern on today's agenda. As at every meeting of this Committee, the 
SPS Committee and the Council for Trade in Goods, Panama reiterates its concern at the non -renewal 
of these substances, p articularly mancozeb. The active substance mancozeb is vitally important for 
my country's main crops. On account of its particular mode of action, it is irreplaceable in the control 
of black Sigatoka, the main pest in tropical crops. There is currently no other active ingredient on 
the market that can replace mancozeb; this leaves our industry deprived of sanitary tools and thus 
seriously affects Panama's exports to the EU. Panama shares the legitimate objective pursued by 
the EU, but this objective must no t be more trade -restrictive than necessary. Panama therefore 
reiterates its request for the EU to reconsider its regulatory approach and take into consideration 
the relevant scientific information, such as the Codex Alimentarius.  
2.204.   In response, the represent ative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU provided detailed explanations on this issue in previous TBT Committees. The non -renewal 
was based on a scientific assessment conducted under the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation 
by experts from the EU member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Since EFSA 
concluded that Mancozeb does not meet the approval criteria as outlined in Article 4 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1107/2009, the approval of this substance was not renew ed. For advice on alternatives to 
Mancozeb, the EU pesticides database64 is publicly available and contains information on all active 
substances, their approval status, and their main purpose (e.g., fungicide, insecticide or herbicide). 
Independently of th e situation under the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation, use restrictions of 
Mancozeb have been introduced under the EU Chemicals legislation (REACH65), following the 
classification of the substance as CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproductive toxicant) 1A or 1B 
under that same Regulation. As regards maximum residue levels (MRLs), the EU would like to inform 
Members that EFSA – as is usual practice f or MRL assessments – follows a risk -based approach. 
EFSA has recently published a new risk assessment66 reviewing the MRLs for dithiocarbamates. This 
review takes into consideration residues of mancozeb along with those of other substances belonging 
to the  same group (dithiocarbamates), as they are reported under a common residue definition, as 
carbon disulfides (CS2). It also considers existing Codex MRLs along with import tolerances, while 
taking into account background levels of CS2 due to naturally occu rring sulphur compounds. Based 
on EFSA's opinion, risk managers commenced discussions and regulatory work on the review of 
those MRLs in autumn 2023.  
 
64 https://ec.europa.EU/food/plant/pesticides/eu -pesticides -db_en   
65 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parl iament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a 
European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 
793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission 
Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).  
66 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/7987   G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 57 - 
 
  2.1.4.18   India – Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020 (IND/131); Amendment in Policy 
Condition No. 2(iii) to Chapter  95 of ITC (HS), 2017 - Schedule -I (Import Policy) 
(IND/143), G/TBT/N/IND/68 , G/TBT/N/IND/131 , G/TBT/N/IND/143.  G/TBT/W/774  
(ID 63267) 
2.205.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. 1. For the Toys (Quality 
Control) Ord er, 2020: Firstly, according to Article 3 of the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020, the 
mandatory certification has involved a large range of toys (all toys products or materials) used by 
children under 14 -year-old including swing and slide, etc. It is re commended that Indian can manage 
toys according to their risk level by conducting mandatory certification on toys of higher risk and 
exempting toys of other risk levels. Secondly, the BIS issued the document of 10 Steps to BIS 
License for Toys on its offic ial website, it requires that factories producing electronic toys should be 
equipped with the instruments specified in IS 15644:2006 Articles 8, 9 and 10. However, the 
instruments needed by some of tests are expensive with high technical requirements, whic h are 
difficult for small and medium -sized enterprises to equip. In addition, those tests are usually done 
by third -party laboratories. This requirement that the instrument should be provided by factory itself 
is unnecessary and unreasonable. According to the TBT agreement 5.1.2, it is recommended that 
the Indian could cancel the factory equipment requirements for electric toys and other projects. 
2. For Policy Condition No. 2(iii) to Chapter 95 of ITC (HS), 2017 - Schedule -I (Import Policy): 
According to Ar ticle 2 of the newly revised Policy Condition No. 2(iii) to Chapter 95 of ITC (HS), 
2017- Schedule -I (Import Policy), samples of imported toys should be randomly sent to NABL 
accredited Labs for testing in the process of clearance. The samples would be rel eased after the test 
is qualified, which seriously affected the efficiency of customs clearance and the cost of the 
importer's storage. It is recommended that Indian could exempt the port test for accredited toys.  
2.206.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU remains 
deeply concerned by the increasing number of Quality Control Orders (QCOs) issued by India across 
many sectors. The EU would like to recall that the majority of QCOs introduced by India appear to 
have a prote ctionist orientation and consequently raise questions regarding their compliance with 
the WTO's TBT Agreement obligations. The EU is particularly concerned by the fact that QCOs usually 
prescribe India -specific standards where international standards alrea dy exist. The EU would like to 
remind India that Article 2.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement requires Members to use international 
standards, where they exist, as basis for their technical regulations, except, when such international 
standards or relevant parts w ould be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the 
legitimate objectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors 
or fundamental technological problems. Furthermore, QCOs prescribe mandatory conform ity 
assessment procedures that are more restrictive than necessary to fulfil their legitimate objective. 
They cause extra burden and economic cost to the EU industry as a result of unnecessarily 
cumbersome procedures, including mandatory factory inspection s, sample testing in Indian 
laboratories, to obtain necessary permissions or licences for products already tested and certified 
under established international standards and schemes. There is no provision for a streamlined 
process on the basis of existing certification from any international body.  
2.207.   The EU remains concerned with the visible trend towards establishing mandatory domestic 
standards in India that deviate from international ones for a growing number of products in various 
sectors. The EU also not es that India is failing to notify many of these measures as required under 
Articles 2.9 and 5.6 of the WTO TBT Agreement. The European Union remains concerned about 
India's Toys Quality Control Order (QCO) ( G/TBT/N/IND/131 ) and the certification r equirements 
introduced by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The EU would like to refer to its previous 
interventions on this STC. The European industries indicate that the QCO remains challenging and 
the process is still very burdensome and complex. In  addition, a major concern is related to the fact 
that the import policy ( G/TBT/N/IND/143 ) is applied on top of the QCO. One of key issues for the 
EU toy industry are the challenges in understanding by the BIS of the complexity and velocity of toy 
manufacturing. For example, when a factory is being audited, only the limited number of items being 
produced in that moment are taken as samples and sent for testing, and then included in the factory 
licence. However, all other toys produced in that factor y at a later stage also need to be included in 
that licence, which is a burdensome process as for foreign manufacturing sites this has to be done 
via paper -based applications, whereas local manufacturers can do it online.  
 
67 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 632. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 58 - 
 
  2.208.   Moreover, given that companies ar e producing a huge variety of items over the year with 
constant innovation, the requirement to add each new SKU (Stock keeping unit) coming from an 
audited factory can cause huge delays in importing new items and should rather be replaced by an 
online appl ication, in order to guarantee a level playing field with local manufacturing. According to 
the EU, the application process should be simplified with less documentation needed and electronic 
versions of documents should also be accepted for review. This wo uld include extending the same 
online system as Manakonline to foreign manufacturers to submit the inclusion applications, which 
allows for easy access, status information, and reference needed for customs clearance. Given that 
the on -line application for licence is only accessible to domestic toy manufacturers results in more 
burden and delays for foreign manufacturers. The EU would like to point out that the time taken to 
process the applications (between the submission of the application and the nominati on of an 
auditor), which is currently two months in average (and sometimes up to almost two years for 
overseas manufacturers) should be reduced to one month to enhance the efficiency of the application 
process.  
2.209.   As concerns the preparation of audits, the E U would like to propose to stipulate a statutory 
timeline for every stage of audits, as this would give better visibility regarding the start and end 
point, increase transparency in the process and eventually benefit not only the applicant to obtain 
the licence in a timely manner but also the BIS to keep track of the applications. Moreover, overseas 
audits should be allowed to be outsourced and carried out by 3rd party auditors, in particular for 
licence renewals, in order to speed up the process. In order to improve the auditing process itself a 
set time limit for the issuance of licences should be provided as well as additional resources and 
trainings for auditors, including check -lists and a standard procedure. The EU would also like to have 
more clarity as regards the procedure of licence renewal. The EU welcomes the increased 
transparency of the process, but would like to understand whether a longer renewal period is granted 
to companies that specifically ask for it? To ensure the continued effectiveness  of the Indian toy 
safety and quality regime under the QCO, the European Union would like to ask once more that the 
Indian government considers removing the current possible duplication of tests for QCO and at 
customs level under the DGFT notification for BIS certified products. According to recent information, 
the EU understands that currently only the QCO is applicable and the previous regime is no longer 
in force. This would mean that there is no need of additional testing at customs anymore. However, 
the EU would welcome a formal confirmation of this understanding. The European Union invites India 
to address the concerns raised and to alleviate the requirement for factory audits overseas. The 
European Union remains available to have bilateral exchanges t o find an adequate solution.  
2.210.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada would like to thank 
China and the EU for raising this STC and support the points and issues they raised regarding this 
measure. Canada would further like to reiterate that, as we stated in previous TBT Committee 
Meetings, the objective of India's quality control orders across many sectors, including toys, remains 
fundamentally unclear. Canada notes that India continues to avoid addressing Canada's and other 
Members' issues and questions in its responsive statements in the recent TBT Committee meetings. 
Canada would once again ask that India provide a substantive response to Members and 
stakeholders questions and concerns.  
2.211.   In response, the representative of India provided the following statement. Bureau of Indian 
Standards (BIS) is carrying out physical inspections for applications received from foreign 
manufacturers, where the country to be visited is facilitating the visit of fully vaccinated BIS officers 
witho ut the requirement of quarantine. Bureau of Indian Standards, under its Laboratory Recognition 
Scheme (BIS LRS), grants recognition to outside laboratories for testing of products as per the 
relevant Indian Standards. The Laboratory Recognition Scheme is g overned by provision under 
section 13(4) of BIS Act, 2016 and Rule 32 of BIS Rules, 2018. These statutory provision confers 
upon BIS, powers to recognize any laboratory in India or outside India for carrying out testing of 
samples in relation to Conformity  Assessment and such other functions as the Bureau may assign 
to it. Clause 12 of BIS LRS details the complete procedure of recognition of foreign laboratories. The 
decision regarding recognition of foreign laboratories will be taken by BIS taking into acc ount the 
MRA (Mutual Recognition Agreement) with the concerned nation. BIS LRS is available on BIS website 
www.bis.gov.in  under "laboratory services" tab. As on date, there is no pending application from 
any Outside Laboratory located outside India seeking recognition from BIS in compliance to the 
provisions of LRS. For EU - Six licences for toys have been granted to foreign  manufacturers in the 
countries of EU. There are two applications pertaining to toys for which audits have been completed 
and are under process. For China - There are 161 applications from China for which inspections are G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 59 - 
 
  pending. Audits to factories locate d in China could not be carried out due to reasons as intimated 
earlier.  
2.1.4.19   India - Quality Control Orders for Chemical and Petrochemical Substances, 
G/TBT/N/IND/116 , G/TBT/N/IND/121 , G/TBT/N/IND/122 , G/TBT/N/IND/123 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/124 , G/TBT/N/IND/125 , G/TBT/N/IND/126 , G/TBT/N/IND/127 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/128 , G/TBT/N/IND/129 , G/TBT/N/IND/130 , G/TBT /N/IND/132 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/133 , G/TBT/N/IND/134 , G/TBT/N/IND/135 , G/TBT/N/IND/136 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/137 , G/TBT/N/IND/138 , G/TBT/N/IND/139 , G/TBT/N/IND/141 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/142 , G/TBT /N/IND/144 , G/TBT/N/IND/150 , G/TBT/N/IND/151 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/152 , G/TBT/N/IND/153 , G/TBT/N/IND/154 , G/TBT/N/IND/175 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/176 , G/TBT/N/IND/177 , G/TBT/N/IND/186 , G/TBT /N/IND/187 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/191 , G/TBT/N/IND/193 , G/TBT/N/IND/199 , G/TBT/N/IND/201 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/202 , G/TBT/N/IND/203 , G/TBT/N/IND/204 , G/TBT/N/IND/205 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/206 , G/TBT /N/IND/208 , G/TBT/N/IND/215 , G/TBT/N/IND/219 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/220 , G/TBT/N/IND/221 , G/TBT/N/IND/223 , G/TBT/N/IND/224 ,  
G/TBT/W/774  (ID 63068) 
2.212.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. In the last nine 
WTO TBT Committee meetings, the United States has raised concerns about India's enactment of 
mandatory quality control orders for chemical and petrochemical products . We understand that India 
has started notifying mandatory, India -specific quality -control standards for the 76 chemicals 
discussed during India's Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC) March 2023 
consultation with several industry stakeholders.  We refer to our previous intervention on the 
76 chemicals and reiterate our request for clarification on the rationale behind mandating compliance 
to standards developed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) for these substances, as opposed 
to encouragi ng voluntary compliance, recognizing other international standards, or including 
reference to international standards in the BIS standards? Additionally. we understand that in 
September 2023, India provided another three -month extension of the Polyethylene  Material for 
Molding and Extrusion (Quality Control) Order (Polyethylene QCO). The United States understands 
from industry that there are still delays in securing BIS inspection and certification for facilities under 
the Polyethylene QCO and that industry  will not be able to comply with India's requirements until 
these mandatory facility inspections take place.  
2.213.   Further, we have received some reports that, despite having raised concerns about 
Polyethylene QCO's burdensome requirements, India may have issue d additional new requirements 
for repacking units to obtain a BIS licence, thereby making it even more difficult for traders to 
comply. Can India please confirm and provide additional information about these new requirements, 
and notify the requirements to  the WTO? We refer to our previous interventions on the Polyethylene 
QCO and ask that, if India is to continue to mandate foreign facility inspections, implementation of 
the quality control order be delayed until India is able to complete the required insp ections. Lastly, 
we remain interested in the questions submitted in G/TBT/W/774  in November 2022. When can 
Members expect a response from India to the questions contained in that document?  
2.214.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia shares the 
concerns expressed by the delegations of the United States of America, and Canada regarding India's 
Notifications G/TBT/N/IND/220 , G/TBT/N/IND/221 , G/TBT/N/IND/223  and G/TBT/N/IND/224  
regarding the implemen tation of the (Quality Control) Order for Acid Oil, Coconut Fatty Acid, Lauric 
Acid, and Palm Fatty Acid. Indonesia noticed that the aforementioned QCO has come into force since 
24 October 2022. While producers maximize their effort to comply to the QCO pr ovisions, the large 
number of regulated products, the need of physical testing, and the factory inspection requirements 
at production sites, are remained to be Indonesia's concerned. Reflecting implementation of other 
QCOs where queues occurred and backlog s of product certification applications coming into the BIS, 
that slow down the certification process and hinder the export process. In this regard, Indonesia 
urges India to consider postponing the implementation of the QCO until adequate infrastructure fo r 
its implementation is ensured, thereby not creating trade barriers in the future. Indonesia is of that 
view that the option of international recognition for conformity assessment result and/or conformity 
assessment bodies (inspection bodies) from the cou ntry of origin not only speed up the audit and 
certification process, but also reduce the cost of certification. For that, Indonesia encourages India 
 
68 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 630. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 60 - 
 
  to accept conformity assessment results issued by foreign conformity assessment bodies (inspection 
bodies)  under the MRA/MLA and accreditation framework.  
2.215.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada would like to thank 
the US and Indonesia for raising this STC as we similarly continue to have concerns over the 
approach taken by India t o make mandatory the use of Indian Standards on the regulation of a 
series of chemical substances. Canada continues to remains of the view that the notification process 
followed by India to inform interested parties of its "Quality Control Orders" (QCO) is  problematic, 
and that several systemic issues persist with respect to the QCO framework across many sectors. 
Most notifications from India with respect to QCO chemicals and petrochemical substances lack 
clarity and transparency with respect to substantive  information and timelines for implementation. 
In Canada's view, the approach to such notifications, goes against the spirit of the transparency 
provisions in the TBT Agreement. Canada urges India to engage constructively in this Committee on 
issues raised  by many Members on the QCO framework, including those contained in document 
G/TBT/W/774  of November 2022, and to ensure that the implementation of the orders is conducted 
in a manner consistent with India's WTO TBT obligations.  
2.216.   In response, the representat ive of India provided the following statement. Chair, the process 
of standards development of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is aligned with accepted international 
best practices that are based on the core principles of openness, transparency, impartiali ty and 
consensus. While formulating Indian standards, it is an integral part of the standard formulation 
process to analyse the relevance of the existing international standards (ISO, IEC or even other 
standards) for Indian situation in accordance with the  Code of Good Practice of the WTO -TBT 
Agreement and as a policy. BIS always tries to align Indian Standards with International Standards 
where available and to the extent possible, keeping in consideration the specific climatic, 
environmental conditions an d technological development in the country. Around 88% of Indian 
Standards, for which corresponding ISO and IEC standards are available, are harmonized with their 
ISO/IEC counterparts. Several extensions have been granted for the QCO orders on chemicals an d 
petrochemicals based on the feedback received from stakeholders. These include QCOs on products 
like Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Copolymers, Polyethylene Material for Moulding and Extrusion, Polyester 
Continuous Filament Fully Drawn Yarn, Polyester Partially Oriented Yarn, Polyester Industrial Yarn, 
100 Percent Polyester Spun Grey and White Yarn (PSY).  
2.1.4.20   India – Draft Food Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation, 2020, 
G/TBT/N/IND/180 , G/TBT/N/IND/237  (ID 66769) 
2.217.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to thank India for the guidance provided so far on how facilities should be 
registered. However, the EU would still refer to its previous statements on  this measure and reiterate 
some of the concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings. Even though no trade disruption 
has occurred until now, the EU remains concerned about the possible disruption to trade in the future 
associated to delays in listin g registered facilities, given the absence of any specific criteria to define 
the risks associated to the listing or delisting of facilities, which may go beyond the India legislation, 
and given the fact that there are different authorities in India regula ting imports of the same 
products, the EU would like to kindly ask India to: Provide written guidance on how to maintain the 
list of facilities updated; Provide details about the risk assessment India performed as a basis for 
the requirements about the reg istration of facilities; Clarify the modalities related to audits in the 
exporting countries, inspections of facilities, border checks and health certificates associated to the 
registration of foreign food manufacturing facilities, if and when these requir ements will be made 
mandatory by the authorities of India; Consider a sufficiently long transition period before restricting 
imports based on the registration of facilities, and avoid that facilities that have not yet been 
registered in the India's Registr ation of Foreign Manufacturers (ReFoM online system) due to 
administrative errors, cannot export; Consider avoiding that the competent authorities of the export 
countries sign more than one certificate with regard to the same sanitary measure; and Notify t o 
both the WTO TBT and SPS Committees the above -mentioned modalities and guidance, to ensure 
full transparency and timely follow -up by all the competent authorities, producers and exporters. 
The EU would like to repeat its request to India to notify these amendments and future measures 
related to the registration of food manufacturing facilities also to the WTO SPS Committee.  
 
69 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 667. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 61 - 
 
  2.218.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
remains concerned with India's facility r egistration measures, notified to the WTO TBT Committee 
as G/TBT/N/IND/180  and G/TBT/N/IND/237 . We note that, thus far, trade has continued 
uninterrupted for US products since this measure was implemented. However, we note that 
additional gu idance is needed in writing as to how the measure will be implemented by India, 
including information regarding the treatment of shipments from unregistered facilities that enter 
ports in India, for exporters and exporting authorities to comply with the me asure. For greater 
clarity, could India please provide a list of HS Codes for products subject to these facility registration 
requirements so that their scope is clearly understood by all parties? In addition, we would be 
interested to know how India's new  registration system has led to any demonstrative change or 
improvement in food safety oversight. Furthermore, the United States remains concerned with 
India's draft measure, Food Safety and Standards (Import) Amendment Regulation, 2020 
(G/TBT/N/IND/180 ). The draft measure states that India may identify categories of "risk" for food 
products "from time to time… for which inspection or audit of foreign food manufacturing facilities 
producing such categories of foods shall be mandatory." We are still concerned about the lack of 
information regarding the scope of this proposed technical regulation and are concerned about its 
consistency with the TBT Agreement. The United States hopes that India will provide any scientific 
and technical information that is used to determine the specific "risk" for food product categories; 
as well as information on audit processes. We look forward to receiving further information and 
clarification from India on these two concerning measures.  
2.219.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan would like to express 
its concerns regarding India's Order related to requirement to register foreign food manufacturing 
facilities. Although ten months have passed since Japan submitted l ists of food manufacturing 
facilities in accordance with the Order on 10 October last year, India has not yet registered some of 
the facilities on the list. Japan would like to request India the following: Specify the HS codes for the 
designated food categ ories subject to the Order: milk and milk products; meat and meat products 
including poultry, fish and their products; egg powder; infant food; and nutraceuticals; Clarify the 
details on how to apply for the registration of foreign food manufacturing facil ities; Clarify the 
procedures following our submission of Japan's answers to the food safety assessment questionnaire 
for the evaluation of regulatory food control systems over milk and milk products; Respond to the 
unanswered questions posed by Japan; and  Notify the Order under the SPS Agreement as well 
because one of the objectives of India's Order is to protect human health or safety.  
2.220.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada would like to once 
again reiterate concerns regardi ng India's draft amendment to its Food Safety Standards (Import) 
Amendment Regulation pertaining to the registration, inspection and/or audit of foreign food 
manufacturing facilities producing food products destined for India, which has been implemented as  
of 1 February 2023. It remains unclear what criteria would be used to determine the level of risk for 
food products imported into India, and what circumstances would instigate an audit or an inspection 
of a foreign manufacturing facility. Canada remains c oncerned with the measure's target 
commodities, source -countries, implementation plan, audit rates, compliance actions and appeals. 
We are of the view that India's approach in these areas could create unnecessary barriers to trade. 
Canada thanks FSSAI for its prompt registration of Canada's food manufacturing facilities and 
publication of list of establishments. However, a number of questions still remain regarding the 
requirements and we look forward to India's response to Canada's comments letter dated 12  January  
2023. Canada continues to reiterate its request to India to notify these amendments to the SPS 
Committee given that India's proposed regulation covers food safety measures aimed at protecting 
human health and safety.  
2.221.   In response, the representati ve of India provided the following statement. FSSAI vide Order 
No. F. No. TIC/B02/2/2022 - IMPORTS - FSSAI, dated 10 October 2022, notified that the registration 
of foreign food manufacturing facilities falling under Milk and Milk Products, Meat and Meat Pro ducts 
including Poultry, Fish, and their products, Egg powder, Nutraceuticals, Foods for Infant Nutrition 
and manufacturers desirous to export such article of food to India shall register with the Food 
Authority before exporting to India. The registration has been made mandatory from 
1 February  2023. The competent authorities of the exporting countries have to provide the list of 
existing manufacturers and of those who are intending to export milk and milk products to India as 
per the notified format in the  order to import@fssai.gov.in . Based on the list provided by the 
competent authority of exporting country, the registration of such facilities will be done by FSSAI on 
its ReFoM po rtal. The listing/registration of the Foreign facilities on FSSAI's online portal -ReFOM has 
already been initiated and updated information for registered facilities is available on FSSAI website. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 62 - 
 
  So far the total of 3,012 facilities have been registered fr om 47 countries including USA, EU member 
States. Further, FSSAI is also flexible to do addition/deletion in the existing list, if requested by the 
member States. By listing /registration of facilities, FSSAI is creating a database, which may be used 
for de vising Risk Management System for food import in the country. As per Food Safety and 
Standards (Import) Regulation, 2017, inspection of Foreign Food manufacturing facility is not 
mandatory for all facilities and may be done as deemed necessary. The trading  partners will be 
informed, as and when, such requirements hold.  
2.1.4.21   European Union - Draft EU Batteries Regulation (implementation of the 
European Green Deal), G/TBT/N/EU/775  (ID 68570) 
2.222.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. The Korean 
government appreciates the opportunity to deliver its comments related to 'Regulation (EU) 
2023/1542 of the EU of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries. Korea would like to 
express our gratitude to the EU for reviewing  Korea's comments made in the previous TBT 
Committee meetings and bilateral meetings in 2022 and 2023 and an official letter submitted last 
August. In particular, Korea wishes to thank the EU for its response to our August inquiry on 
1 November, which prov ided some relief to the industry's concerns. However, there remain 
unresolved concerns within relevant Korean industries regarding Article 11 of the Battery Regulation, 
on the "removability and replaceability of portable batteries and LMT batteries". Korea  would like to 
underscore the following requests. First, Korea requests that the EU provide appropriate exemptions 
and detailed guidelines regarding battery replacement tools and cycles for products without any 
specific replacement requirements, such as We arable devices, Watches, etc. Second, paragraphs 6 
and 8 of Article 11 set forth requirements that portable battery (or LMT battery) for appliance should 
be readily substituted by another compatible battery without performance degradation or 
impediment by software. Korea requests that the EU, at the very least, allow a simple warning (e.g. 
"The battery is not compatible with the device") to be displayed by the software, if the substitute 
battery does not meet the requirements originally designed by the appl iance manufacturer.  
2.223.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. Firstly, regarding the 
calculation method of carbon footprint: the regulation specifies the carbon footprint in Chapter 2, 
Section 7, Appendix II, and sets a maximum threshol d for the full life cycle carbon footprint. 
However, it is currently difficult for the EU to conduct a fair and scientific assessment of the carbon 
footprint of batteries based on the data. China believes that conducting carbon footprint calculations 
for battery products should be based on a scientific and reasonable foundation. In addition, according 
to the principle of "shared but differentiated responsibilities" in the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, if the EU sets a maximum thresh old for carbon footprint, it will 
inevitably conflict with international rules. To facilitate the implementation of the "carbon footprint 
threshold", it is recommended that the EU publicly disclose the plan and progress of the development 
of carbon footpri nt calculation methods, and allow other members to participate in the discussion of 
the development of carbon footprint calculation methods. Given China's accumulated experience in 
carbon footprint calculation methods and models, China is willing to partic ipate in the European 
discussion on carbon footprint calculation methods to make the relevant methods more scientific 
and effective.  
2.224.   Secondly, regarding supply chain due diligence: the regulation stipulates a supply chain due 
diligence plan in Chapter 7, Section 48. This investigation is authorized by the EU to conduct supply 
chain due diligence in other markets, which will involve issues of sovereignty and business secrets, 
inevitably posing security risks to trade. Regarding supply chain due diligence, C hina appreciates 
the European side's willingness to consider China's suggestions and evaluate the relevant provisions 
in the draft regulations one by one. China believes that maintaining communication and dialogue is 
an effective way to resolve differences . China is willing to maintain continuous communication with 
the EU on this issue and conduct discussions with relevant European experts to develop a more 
scientific and reasonable solution. Thirdly, regarding the issue of "separate registration is require d 
for initial sales in member states": the regulation says in Chapter 8, Section 55, Paragraph 2 that 
"when manufacturers first sell batteries in different member states' markets, they should submit 
separate registration applications to each member state."  Given that the current EU member states 
do not have unified requirements for manufacturer registration, separate registration will cause an 
unnecessary burden to enterprises. Regarding the issue of "separate registration is required for 
initial sales in m ember states", China appreciates the efforts to simplify the registration requirements 
 
70 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 685. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 63 - 
 
  within the EU. However, enterprises still report the phenomenon of duplicate registration in member 
states. China suggests that the European side establish a unified reg istration platform, which not 
only reduces the burden on enterprises but also facilitates regulation.  
2.225.   Fourthly, regarding the certification of battery recycling components: the regulation 
stipulates sustainability and safety requirements for battery carbo n footprint and recycling 
components, but it doesn't specify whether cobalt, lead, lithium, or nickel must be obtained from 
the EU market or can be obtained from the place of origin. If it can be recovered from the origin, it 
is suggested that the EU expla in the certification process of cobalt, lead, lithium, or nickel recovered 
from the origin in the EU. Fifthly, regarding the carbon footprint and algorithm of batteries: the 
Annex II Carbon Footprint specifies the use of the climate module in the EU Produc t Environmental 
Footprint (PEF) method to calculate the carbon footprint of battery products. However, ISO has 
released ISO14067:2018 Greenhouse gases - Product carbon footprint - Quantitative requirements 
and guidelines. According to Article 2.4 of the WT O TBT Agreement, "Where technical regulations 
are required and relevant international standards exist or their completion is imminent, Members 
shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations except when 
such intern ational standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for 
the fulfillment of the legitimate objectives pursued". We hope the EU can explain the reason why 
ISO 14067 and other relevant international standards were not used as ru les for calculating the 
carbon footprint of battery products. Lastly, regarding carbon labelling requirements: the regulation 
requires battery products to obtain carbon labels in order to enter the EU market. We know that the 
most fundamental method to ach ieve carbon neutrality is the adjustment of industrial structure and 
technological progress. In order to prevent and reduce "carbon leakage", it is suggested that the EU 
consider providing technical assistance to the main producing areas of imported batter ies (such as 
China) in accordance with Article 11 of the TBT Agreement to reduce carbon emissions during the 
production process; At the same time, it is recommended that the EU maintain open communication 
channels with other Members regarding the carbon fo otprint certification system and conformity 
assessment system.  
2.226.   The representative of the Russian Federation  provided the following statement. The Russian 
Federation would like to reiterate its statements made at the previous TBT Committee meetings with 
regard to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning batteries and 
waste batteries. Since June 2021, the EU delegation has been requested to provide clarification on 
specific scientific justification of proposed measure, relevant international standards which had been 
the basis for the regulation provisions, in particular, for the maximum level of carbon footprint over 
the lifecycle of batteries, minimum level of certain recycled materials, as well as additional 
restrictions on the  use of cobalt, lithium and nickel. The EU was also requested to share information 
if less trade restrictive measures to stimulate recycling of nickel, lithium, cobalt, copper and lead 
were considered rather than such administrative measure as minimum leve l of recycled materials in 
the battery. None of the requests has been addressed.  
2.227.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU would like to thank China and Korea for their comments on the proposal for an EU  Batteries 
Regulation. The proposal has recently been adopted as Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 in July 2023. 
The EU would like to reiterate that, on Article 11 on removability and replaceability of portable 
batteries and light means of transport batteries, pre paratory work on the guidelines is still ongoing. 
The replaceability of such batteries is important for consumers, and derogations can only apply when 
this is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance. As for the timetable regarding 
the implementation on carbon footprint calculation methodology, the situation on batteries for 
electric vehicles is very advanced thanks to the work that was already carried out by stakeholders 
in the past. The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission h as recently published their 
recommendations, which will serve as the basis for the further process on the delegated act, along 
with feedback of stakeholders. The EU intends to notify a draft to TBT in the coming months. The 
EU will also engage with stakeho lders on other parts of the implementation of the Regulation, both 
for further legal implementation and for additional guidelines. Finally, the EU considers that the 
regulation is not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil its legitimate policy ob jectives, taking 
into account the risks that non -fulfilment would create.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.1.4.22   European Union - Withdrawal of the approval of the active substance alpha -
cypermethrin, G/TBT/N/EU/770 , G/TBT/N/EU/908  (ID 69471) 
2.228.   The representative of Kenya  provided the following statement. Kenya reiterates her previous 
position on this STC where EU has proposed new regulations withdrawing the approval of the acti ve 
substance alpha -cypermethrin. 1. Kenya raised this as a Specific Trade Concern in the previous TBT 
Committee meeting and continues to have concerns over the same issue. 2. Kenya takes note of 
the EU's response given in the June 2023 TBT Committee meetin g and looks forward to the report 
of the review currently being conducted by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  
2.229.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to express 
its concerns related to European notification G/TBT/N/EU/770  regarding the Commission 
Implementing Regulation proposal to withdraw the approval of the active substance 
alpha -cypermethrin. Alpha -cypermethrin is registered in Brazil as an insecticide used against 
harmful pests that damage a variety o f crops, including soy, cotton, corn, citrus, watermelon, 
peanut, coffee, among other products exported to the European Union. The substance is also 
essential to control greening, a disease affecting citrus orchards worldwide. May we recall that 
greening h as been recognized by EFSA itself as a priority pest for control, according to the 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1702. Withdrawal of the register of said substance and 
automatic reduction of MRLs will significantly affect the income of Brazilia n farmers, especially citrus 
producers. The Brazilian citrus industry plays an important role in generating jobs in the countryside. 
Alpha -cypermethrin is also an important component to conduct integrated pest management, once 
it may be combined with other  insecticides to contribute to increase their useful life, ensuring 
efficient pest control and maintaining the sustainability of crop production. In conclusion, firstly, 
Brazil would like to stress the urgency for the EU to adopt MRLs for imported products  in accordance 
with the limits set under the Codex Alimentarius. Secondly, considering European countries still 
approve "emergency use" of the same substance, therefore discriminating against imported 
products, Brazil would reiterate its request that the E U renews the approval of the active substance, 
which expired on 31 October. In this sense, Brazil would appreciate receiving any update on EFSA's 
review of MRLs for the whole group of cypermethrins.  
2.230.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following sta tement. We extend our thanks to 
Kenya and Brazil for raising this trade concern. We request that Paraguay's support and statement 
from the March meeting of this Committee be put on record.  
2.231.   Statement from March 2023 meeting, in full.72 Paraguay wishes to re iterate the importance 
of this substance in controlling pests that attack crops of great economic importance to the country, 
such as maize, soybean, sunflower and cotton. In this regard, Paraguay once again requests the 
European Union to take into account,  when reviewing the MRLs for this substance, information on 
pesticides provided by the specialized agencies recognized by the WTO, such as the Codex 
Alimentarius, to reconsider its approach and to base its decisions on conclusive scientific evidence 
and re al risk weightings, in accordance with international standards and principles.  
2.232.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU thanks Members for raising this issue. In principle, the EU would like to refer to  its previous 
statements at the TBT Committee, which we made on the issue of withdrawal of approval of this 
substance. Additionally, a review of the residue definitions for risk assessment of pyrethroids forming 
common metabolites has been conducted and pu blished by the European Food Safety Authority 
(EFSA).73 As regards Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), the review of the whole group of 
cypermethrins (including alpha -cypermethrin) under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 has 
been recently finalized and published by EFSA.74 Existing Codex Maximum Residue Limits and Import 
Tolerances have been considered in this review, where EFSA performed a risk assessment to 
evaluate the safety of these levels. A first discussion on a possible draft Regulation amending MRLs 
for cypermethrin took place in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and 
 
71 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 694. 
72 G/TBT/M/89 , paras. 2.488 -2.489.  
73 EFSA, Review of the residue definitions for risk assessment of pyrethroids forming common 
metabolites, EFSA Journal 2023;21(5):8022, 
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8022 .  
74 EFSA, Review of the existing maximum residue levels for cypermethrins according to Article 12 of 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA Jou rnal 2023;21(3):7800, 
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/7800 .  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 65 - 
 
  Feed, section Phytopharmaceuticals – pesticides residues.75 The draft Regulation will be notified to 
the WTO/SPS  Committee in November 2023 allowing non -EU count ries to comment on it before a 
final decision will be taken (expected for February 2024). If Members consider it necessary to ensure 
that MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin on relevant crops, that were based on previous and now obsolete 
EU uses, remain, or should  be newly set at higher/different levels, they may wish to submit an 
application for setting import tolerances according to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 [4] 
on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal orig in.  
2.1.4.23   Indonesia - Government Regulation 28 of 2021 – Implementing Regulation (for 
the Manufacturing/Industry Sector) to Law No. 11 of 2020 the "Job Creation Act", 
G/TBT/N/IDN/152  (ID 72476) 
2.233.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union continues to remain seriously concerned by Government Regulation No.28 of 2021 and the 
requirements for Indonesian National Standard (SNI) certification. This Regulation is one of the 
implementing regul ations of the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (Law 11/2020). Government 
Regulation 28/2021 aims to increase the competitiveness of Indonesia's national industry and mainly 
outlines measures related to raw materials. It also introduces new requirements with reg ard to 
product certification bodies. The new requirements affect in principle all products subject to SNI 
certification, thus making export to Indonesia very complicated. Additionally, due to lack of available 
guidelines, the situation does not improve. Ce rtain sectors are particularly concerned (e.g. toys, 
tyres and machinery). The European industry continues to report that various requirements of this 
measure continue to represent an unnecessary barrier to trade. The European Union would like to 
refer to its previous statements made during recent TBT Committee meetings and notes that the 
majority of the issues raised therein remains unanswered. The European Union invites Indonesia to 
respond to concerns we raised previously, and in particular to make sure that the conformity 
assessment bodies continue certification process for foreign products. The EU remains available to 
discuss this issue bilaterally.  
2.234.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
continues to have serious concerns with the Government of Indonesia Regulation No. 28 of 2021 
(GR28/2021), which is the Implementing Regulation (for the Manufacturing/Industry Sector) to Law 
No. 11 of 2020 of the "Job Creation Act." We still have not received responses  to many of our 
long-standing concerns. In its most recent statement at the June 2023 TBT Committee, Indonesia 
stated that it remains committed to complying with its transparency obligations under the WTO TBT 
Agreement. However, it failed to provide reason able time for Members to comment on the 
implementing regulation, "Regulation of Minister of Industry No. 45 Year 2022 regarding 
Standardization of Industry" ( G/TBT/N/IDN/152 ), which was notified in January 2023, despite being 
signed and entering in to force in November 2022. Indonesia also has not explained what steps it 
took to take Members' comments into account, considering that the comment period was provided 
after the measure entered into force. Among other concerns raised, we continue to reques t a 
response from Indonesia providing a justification for requiring conformity assessment testing to be 
conducted by Indonesian civil servants residing in Indonesia, and how these requirements relate to 
the ability to perform conformity assessment. This, a long with the other requirements of this 
measure, continue to raise concerns regarding Indonesia's compliance with its TBT Agreement 
commitments. We again refer Indonesia to our previous statements from November 2021; March, 
July, and November 2022; and Ma rch and June 2023. Without reiterating them, the United States 
requests that Indonesia provide a response that specifically addresses Members' concerns.  
2.235.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. China appreciates Indonesia's 
response to this concern at meetings, but our manufacturers still face complicated procedures and 
cost burdens in obtaining SNI certification. China once again suggests that Indonesia could c ancel 
the requirement that an auditor can only audit one factory at one time in B/1027/Indonesia 
BSKJI.4/IDN/assist/2021; and product certification should be conducted by Indonesian auditor in 
GR 28/2021. Meanwhile, it is recommended to provide the rationa le for requiring the enterprise's 
 
75 https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023 -10/sc_phyto_20230918_ppr_sum.pdf [ 4] Regulation 
(EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue 
levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 
91/414/EEC. OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1.  
76 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 724. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 66 - 
 
  own brand also possess an existing SNI certification, as specified in Article 34(3)C of Regulation of 
Minister of Industry No. 45 Year 2022 regarding Standardization of Industry.  
2.236.   The representative of Canada  provided the f ollowing statement. Once again, Canada 
reiterates the following points from previous meetings of the Committee, specifically outlined in our 
statement at the July, 2022 TBT Committee in paragraphs 2.402 -2.404 of G/TBT/M/87 , and which 
we are again referring to  today for the record. Canada thanks Indonesia for its response to Canada's 
comment letter dated 14 June 2023. In its response, Indonesia notes that the implementation of 
the conformity assessment procedure shall continue to be carried out in accordance wi th the previous 
regulations, until such regulations are amended. Can Indonesia provide a timeline of when the 
regulations will be amended? The response also highlights that all provisions regarding the standards 
and the conformity assessment scheme apply e qually for both domestic and foreign manufacturers. 
However, the requirement that the conformity assessment body be located in Indonesia would 
provide a significant advantage to producers in Indonesia and be a significant barrier to trade for 
Canadian expo rters. Can Indonesia provide its rationale for such a requirement? Canada would also 
like again to reiterate the following request to Indonesia: namely to provide a rationale as to why 
Indonesia notified Regulation No 45 in January 2023 when it entered int o force in November 2022 
as well as how Members and stakeholders' comments were taken into account  
2.237.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia 
thanks to the European Union, the United States, China and Canada f or their continued interest to 
Government Regulation 28 Year 2021. We would like inform that GR 28 of 2021 has been amended 
to GR No. 46 of 2023 that contains several changes in provision related to commodity balances, the 
ease of importation of Raw Materi als and/or Auxiliary Materials for Industry, and Industrial 
Standardization. This regulation does not yet specifically regulate the SNI certification of specific 
products. According to Minister of Industry Regulation Number 45 of 2022 ( G/TBT/N/IDN/152 ), 
Article 14 -15, Indonesia is committed to fulfilling the transparency principle of the WTO TBT 
Agreement by notifying all relevant technical regulations regarding specific products mandatory 
standards certification. Indonesia emphasizes that currently  there is no changes to the current 
regulations until specific regulations regarding certain products are issued. It means, the conformity 
assessment bodies can still carry out the SNI certification process normally according to the statutory 
provision. We  suggest that if Members are facing obstacles during the SNI certification process, 
kindly send that information through Indonesia WTO TBT Enquiry Point to be reviewed by the 
relevant regulator. Prior to the enactment of GR 28 of 2021, Indonesia already ha d a policy for the 
conformity assessment bodies also operate their own testing laboratories for all products subject to 
SNI certification. The type 1 and type 5 scheme certification are commonly used for product 
certifications in accordance with internatio nal standards ISO 17067. Currently, Indonesia has 
1,863  testing laboratories; 145 inspection bodies and 129 conformity assessment bodies accredited 
by National Accreditation Body (Komite Akreditasi Nasional) according to the ISO/IEC 17025, 17020, 
and 17065 . This number is sufficient to carry out the mandatory SNI certification for all sectors. The 
appointment of conformity assessment bodies for the specific product should refer to Art. 16 -17 
Minister of Industry Regulation Number 45 of 2022. We accept test results from accredited foreign 
testing laboratories, under the framework of mutual recognition agreements and the availability of 
technical regulatory agreements between Indonesia and its partner countries. The mandatory 
application of standard and confor mity assessment of product certification will be regulated through 
specific Minister of Industry's regulation.  
2.1.4.24   European Union - Draft Commission Regulation amending Annexes II and V to 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Counc il as regards 
maximum residue levels for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products, 
G/TBT/N/EU/908  (ID 76377) 
2.238.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia reiterates our 
concerns about amendments to Regulat ion 396/2005 arising from Commission Regulation 2023/334 
regarding maximum residue levels for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products. The 
amendments consider environmental impacts in exporting countries when setting import MRLs and 
assessi ng requests for import tolerances. Australia recognises the right of WTO Members to regulate 
agricultural imports in a manner that protects animal, plant and human health and the environment. 
However, Members are also bound by WTO obligations, particularly  in relation to undertaking 
science -based risk assessments and ensuring that measures are no more trade -restrictive than 
 
77 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 763. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 67 - 
 
  necessary. Australia does not support using MRLs on imported products to achieve environmental 
outcomes outside the EU's borders. This extra-territorial approach impacts the ability of third 
countries to implement environmental policies consistent with their unique environmental 
circumstances. National authorities of third countries are best placed to ensure that pesticide 
application is undertaken in a responsible and sustainable manner in each country, and in accordance 
with their unique environment. Australia is concerned about the limitations of the 2018 European 
Food Safety Authority risk assessments cited by the EU in the draft regul ation. These studies have 
been used to support a link between the lowering of MRLs to the limit of determination and pollinator 
health. We request the EU provides robust scientific evidence in support of this conclusion. Australia 
also requests the EU prov ide information on the health of pollinators in all trading countries where 
the new MRLs are likely to apply. The EU may wish to consider restricting the new MRLs to only 
those countries where is has robust evidence to support its policy objective. Austral ia has a robust 
regulatory framework for agricultural and veterinary chemicals, providing Australian farmers with 
safe access to the pesticides they need to maintain productivity and profitability while looking after 
Australia's unique environment. This ap proach aligns with the principles set out in the recent 
statement by Cairns Group members on the contribution of the multilateral trading system to support 
sustainable and resilient agriculture and food systems ( G/AG/GEN/222 ). The Statement highlights 
the crucial role of a resilient agriculture sector in feeding the growing population and a science -based 
and inclusive approach to collectively address environmental challenges. We look forward to 
continuing to engage with the EU on this important topic.  
2.239.   The representative of Kenya  provided the following statement. Kenya reiterates her previous 
position on this Specific Trade Concern. 1. Kenya raised this as a Specific Trade Concern in the 
previous TBT Committee meetings and continues to have concerns over the  same issue. 2. Kenya 
takes note of the EU's response given in the June 2023 TBT Committee meeting. Arising from this 
response, Kenya looks forward to further information that the EU may have, concerning this issue. 
3. Kenya wishes to express concern on th e fact that the measures have been adopted despite the 
concerns raised by Members.  
2.240.   The representative of Colombia  provided the following statement. Colombia is aware of the 
importance of foods free from excess pesticide residues that comply with internatio nal safety 
recommendations. However, the ban on active substances such as mancozeb, clothianidin, 
thiamethoxam and chlorothalonil, and the subsequent non -renewal of the approval of these 
substances, are hitting our country's agricultural export sector hard . While our health authorities are 
going to great lengths with the productive sectors to explore alternatives to meet the requirements, 
the search for substances to replace those that have been banned or whose approval is being 
modified requires time and i nvestment, especially when potential alternatives are also becoming 
scarcer owing to changes to phytosanitary regulations in the European Union. A typical example of 
this, but not the only one, is the limited availability of an alternative to mancozeb, on account of 
similar substances, such as chlorothalonil, being banned in the European market. In this context, it 
is vital that the non -renewal or modification of approval for active substances takes into account 
production processes and methods in countries  that could be affected. Failing to do so would violate 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which stipulates that technical regulations shall not be more 
trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. Failing to do so also seems to violat e 
Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement, which states that account should be taken of the special financial 
and trade needs of developing countries, with a view to ensuring that regulations, standards and 
conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecess ary obstacles to exports. In this regard, 
we agree with arguments presented in this Committee expressing the need for the European Union 
to bring maximum residue levels into line with the levels established within the framework of the 
Codex Alimentarius an d to treat farmers in third countries no less favourably than it does European 
farmers. We therefore invite the European Union to seek out and support solutions that would allow 
our agricultural producers to continue meeting the European demand for food, t o the benefit of not 
only developing countries but also the multilateral trading system, which has already been hit hard 
by this and other measures.  
2.241.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
remains concern ed with the European Union's Commission Regulation 2023/334 regarding the 
reduction of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, notified to the TBT 
Committee as G/TBT/N/EU/908  on 6 June 2022. The United States is concerned tha t this 
precedent -setting regulation lacks sufficient technical justification to fulfil its environmental 
objective, and undermines the expertise of national competent authorities and good agricultural 
practices worldwide. Given the critical importance of p esticides such as clothianidin and G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 68 - 
 
  thiamethoxam for the production of crops that are exported to the EU from the United States and 
other WTO Members, we are concerned that the reduction of these MRLs to the limit of determination 
(LOD) poses a significant obstacle to trade. As the EU has previously recognized, global 
environmental challenges cannot be achieved by prescriptive, one -size-fits-all approaches that are 
narrowly tailored to the conditions in one country or region. The United States welcomes the E U to 
instead pursue a collaborative approach to protecting pollinators, using appropriate international 
venues to advance a shared understanding of this global challenge. The United States respectfully 
reminds the EU that environmental considerations are n ot included in the Codex Committee on 
Pesticide Residue (CCPR) assessment process for establishing MRLs, and are hopeful that the EU will 
move away from the attempt to use pesticide MRLs as an environmental safety management tool.  
2.242.   The United States urges the EU to refrain from using pesticide MRLs outside of their intended 
purpose, which is to allow regulators to monitor the lawful applications of pesticides and to ensure 
consumer food safety. We also remind the EU that the lack of predictability that resu lts from the 
consideration of import tolerance requests on a "case -by-case" basis, as in the case of this 
regulation, unnecessarily increases uncertainty for farmers globally and limits farmers' ability to 
protect crops from pests and diseases. The United States recalls that the European Food Safety 
Authority's (EFSA) most recent review of clothianidin and thiamethoxam MRLs recommended MRLs 
that were safe for consumers. We respectfully ask the EU to share the scientific and technical 
information evaluated b y EFSA that demonstrates how the reduction of these MRLs to the LOD for 
products produced outside of the EU protects pollinators, including bees. Given the lack of global 
consensus about the factors that negatively affect pollinator health, including the h ealth of bees, 
and in the absence of scientific or technical information indicating how the reduction of MRLs to the 
LOD for products produced outside of the EU contributes to the objective of protection of pollinators, 
including bees, the United States re quests that the EU refrain from additional attempts to achieve 
global environmental outcomes through pesticide MRLs and to restore prior MRLs for clothianidin 
and thiamethoxam.  
2.243.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes once 
again to support this trade concern, which was originally raised by Kenya and relates to the EU's 
intention to establish maximum residue levels (MRLs) for clothianidin and thiamethoxam as 
mechanisms  to fulfil environmental objectives. Costa Rica reiterates, as it has done at previous 
meetings of this Committee, that, broadly speaking, its national policy is aligned with the EU's 
objective of prioritizing environmental protection, the fight against cl imate change and sustainable 
economic development, as the only viable path to secure the future of our planet. However, under 
no circumstances must achieving these objectives come at the expense of multilateralism and the 
fundamental obligations that under pin this Organization. The TBT Agreement clearly sets out the 
objectives that technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures may 
legitimately fulfil. From Costa Rica's perspective, it is unclear which legitimate objective might justi fy 
the revision of an MRL, which is a matter related to food security and the protection of human health 
and therefore falls within the scope of the SPS Agreement. In that connection, we are struggling to 
understand EU notification G/TBT/N/EU/908 , due to the fact that, although this notification proposes 
reducing the MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, it was submitted to the TBT Committee and 
not to the SPS Committee. Costa Rica does not agree with the EU's claim that the above -mentioned 
notificat ion is justified by a "global environmental concern". Among the legitimate objectives of the 
TBT Agreement, we cannot find global environmental concerns as justification for a measure covered 
by this Agreement. Addressing global environmental concerns is a lso a matter of the utmost 
importance for Costa Rica. However, it is unclear how this objective falls within the scope of the SPS 
and TBT Agreements. We thank the delegations that support this concern and endorse their 
statements. Lastly, we request and wo uld welcome more detailed explanations from the EU 
regarding this concern.  
2.244.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia reiterate that 
the Draft Commission Regulation as regards maximum residue levels for clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam, notified under G/TBT/N/EU/908  amending Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, will have 
a serious impact on farmers in developing countries producing products exported to the European 
Union, as it will restrict farmers from using certain technologie s useful for producing agricultural 
commodities economically, as has been raised at previous meetings. Indonesia also reminds that 
Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) is an international trade standard related to food safety and 
consumer protection. The Impositi on of MRLs for environmental protection deviates from the 
purpose of MRLs themselves. Every country, including Indonesia, has unique sustainable agriculture 
goals and challenges. In addition to climate challenges, agriculture in our country has high pest a nd G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 69 - 
 
  disease pressure due to the combination of heat, humidity, and plant -disturbing organism pressure 
from various pests, diseases, and plant weeds. To overcome these problems, various methods, tools, 
and technologies are needed so that agriculture can sust ainably meet the world's growing food and 
feed needs. Therefore, in accordance with regulations implemented by the government, we continue 
to promote more sustainable and good agricultural practices and food systems by emphasizing the 
combination of the be st methods and techniques to achieve adequate and more sustainable 
production. Therefore, regulatory decisions relating to pollinator protection should take into account 
the uniqueness of each country's ecology and agricultural landscape, and be assessed b y each 
country's regulators based on a scientific approach.  
2.245.   Indonesia understands that this draft regulation does not require non -EU countries to ban 
the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam in their own territories and the aim is that food and feed 
consu med in the EU does not contribute to the global decline of pollinators. However, lowering the 
MRL to the Limit of Quantification (LoQ) is an indirect measure to avoid the use of thiamethoxam 
and clothianidin by countries that have different agricultural pr actices to control pests resulting in 
different but safe residue levels. We believe that non -EU countries have their own regulatory 
frameworks that recognize the safety of these products in use. Indonesia has adopted Codex 
Alimentarius standards for settin g MRLs through the Indonesian National Standard (SNI), and all 
other crops have MRLs currently set higher than 0.01 mg/kg, except for palm oil and cocoa products. 
However, any new levels applied will pose a risk to our export products, as even small exceed ances 
that are perfectly safe for human consumption could lead to refusal of shipments to the EU or return 
and destruction. This will result in high cost for our producers and the uncertainty process will make 
it less attractive due to the higher risk of r ejection. We would like to appreciate the data from the 
EU annual monitoring program for pesticide residues in 2019, all analyzed samples originating from 
Indonesia, had clothianidin or thiamethoxam levels lower than the LoQ, except for tea products. We 
highlight a very significant decrease in MRLs for tea products, from Codex Standards and EU 
Regulations, which are 400 times and 14 times lower for Thiamethoxam and Clothianidin, 
respectively. Referring to Codex, the MRLs for Thiamethoxam and Clothianidin ar e 20 mg/kg and 
0.7 mg/kg, whereas under the EU Regulation, the MRL should be 0.05 mg/kg. This will be a 
significant obstacle for Indonesian tea farmers which could lead to loss of Indonesian tea exports to 
the EU. Indonesia hopes that the European Union ca n take this into consideration and refer to the 
MRLs in existing international standards as a reference for setting MRLs for clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam in or on certain products.  
2.246.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Paraguay reiterates its 
concern about the EU's claim to use the MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, not to protect 
European  consumers, but as a means to regulate the use of neonicotinoids in production processes 
and methods in third countries. In the interest o f time, I will limit myself to making only a few 
comments and repeating some of the unanswered questions. The restrictions on international trade 
imposed by this Regulation will make farmers in Paraguay and the region less competitive than 
farmers in Europ e, who do not have to contend with the same pests and climatic conditions to 
produce food, and who can benefit from emergency authorizations to continue using these 
substances. In the interest of time, I shall simply provide a brief update on the main poin ts made at 
the Committee's previous meeting and the unanswered questions. With respect to comments on the 
notification submitted in writing within the time limit by Paraguay and several other Members: Please 
could the EU clarify how the comments submitted by Members are taken into account? That is, how 
they are taken into account in this case, but also in general, as we asked with regard to STC ID 580 
on international consultations. In particular, bearing in mind the short time that elapsed between 
the end of the comment period and the decision of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food 
and Feed (SCoPAFF) of the EU, which approved the proposal to reduce the MRLs for these substances 
without amendments.  
2.247.   With respect to the erroneous reference to my c ountry in the final version of Regulation 
2023/334, while it required twice as much time as it took SCoPAFF to analyse the comments of a 
number of members, I welcome the publication of a corrigendum. To date, however, a revised 
version is still not availab le on the official EU website so when consulting the Regulation, the 
erroneous reference to Paraguay remains in footnote 19. With regard to emergency authorizations, 
we still have not received responses to the questions on how long it takes to approve an e mergency 
authorization and what the average cost of the approval process for an emergency authorization is 
in order to understand how emergency authorizations are compatible with the non -discrimination 
obligation. The EU insists that this depends on the me mbers that are also WTO Members in their 
own right, so I would like to direct the question to the Czech Republic or Romania, given that the G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 70 - 
 
  most recent emergency authorizations for these substances were issued by the Czech  Republic; 
maybe they could provid e this information. Likewise, with respect to the ruling of 19  January  2023 
of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), we have not received responses explaining how this ruling 
affects emergency authorizations in general and authorizations for these substan ces specifically, 
especially since we have identified at least five emergency authorizations that were valid for periods 
after the ruling and at least one emergency authorization for thiamethoxam that was granted after 
the judgement. This authorization was  granted by the Czech Republic on 4  April 2023 for the period 
from 20  April to 16  July 2023. Although there have been no new emergency authorizations after 
this, this may be because of the times of year when the substances are required, and not because 
of the ruling itself, so the clarification is still required.  
2.248.   Concerning import tolerances, I would like to use the example of another substance, 
tricyclazole, which, despite the fact that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) considered that 
import tole rances and "the proposed MRLs (in this case for rice) are fully supported by data and safe 
for consumers". And yet a number of member States did not support the approval of the draft 
Regulation submitted by the Commission. The draft fell short of the major ity required in SCoPAFF 
and in the Council, and is likely to be vetoed in the European Parliament, meaning that the obligation 
to base measures on scientific principles has not been met. If member States fail to vote in favour 
of import tolerances when MRL s are set with the objective of protecting human health, how can the 
Commission argue that requesting import tolerances is a feasible way forward for MRLs set with 
environmental objectives (for example, those covered by this Regulation)? With respect to th e 
extraterritoriality of the measure, I do not think it is necessary to reiterate how this measure fails 
to recognize the ability of national authorities to establish regulatory frameworks based on sound 
science, which are applied to registration processes  in order to assess the risks of pesticides and 
their uses, including the assessment of the risk to the environment and to pollinators. I will only ask 
the EU how this is consistent with its obligations under WTO rules and under its founding agreements. 
These and other questions were submitted to the EU as part of the corresponding trade concerns 
raised in the SPS Committee, in document G/SPS/GEN/2140 . We look forward to receiving responses 
shortly.  
2.249.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following s tatement. Once more, Brazil supports 
the STC raised by an impressive number of countries, which should speak for itself, regarding the 
proposition notified as G/TBT/N/EU/908 , which resulted in the publication of Commission Regulation 
2023/334, withdr awing approval of the active substances thiamethoxam and clothianidin and 
restricting the maximum residue levels in or on certain products. Reassessing the concerns 
expressed in June and the European Union's comments, Brazil would much appreciate further 
explanation on some topics that were not entirely clarified. The first topic regards extraterritorial 
effects. Even though the EU states "the Regulation (EC) No 2023/334 does not regulate the use of 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam by non -EU countries in their  own territory", it also states that the 
new regulation "will become applicable from 7 March 2026, to provide enough time to operators in 
third countries, especially in least developed and developing countries, and food business operators, 
to prepare thems elves to meet the new requirements". How does the EU explain such contradiction? 
The second topic regards taking into account different local circumstances. "About the risks that 
thiamethoxam and clothianidin may have on bees' population worldwide, Brazil understands that 
one could not expect to extend to all countries of the world trade -restrictive measures that do not 
consider the variety of local conditions, including climate and soil." The EU responded that it 
"acknowledges that non -EU countries may fac e production conditions and pest pressures different 
from those in Europe", but Brazil did not understand how such recognition was given regulatory 
effects and would appreciate further comments on this matter.  
2.250.   As previously stated, the Brazilian State of São Paulo is the main citrus juice producer and 
it is also where 84% of honey production is concentrated. In that state, there is no evidence of a 
decline in the number of pollinators. On the contrary, honey production in that region has increased 
by about  136% in 15 years (2008 -2022, BR Citrus). The third topic, closely related to the previous 
one, refers to the lack of scientific basis. Brazil identifies the need for further discussion, under sound 
scientific basis and proper dialectic approach, about the  risks that thiamethoxam and clothianidin 
may have on bees' population worldwide. To highlight how it is unclear for Brazil that the trade 
restrictions proposed by the EU would be justified, thiamethoxam is one important substance used 
in control strategie s of pests such as the citrus psyllid, an insect that transmits the greening disease. 
The fourth and last topic refers to the lack of scientific basis or multilaterally agreed concept that 
would associate MRL to environmental issues. If the concept of MRL related to human health issues 
is well established by the Codex Alimentarius, a proper (or any) concept of MRL related to G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 71 - 
 
  environmental issues is not established either multilaterally or scientifically and occurs in 
disagreement with what is recommended in  the risk analysis flowchart established in the Codex. 
Resuming the arguments presented in June, Brazil reiterates concern over the lack of scientific 
support and underlines that any unilateral extraterritorial measure is in breach of the TBT Agreement 
(Article 2.2). One could not expect to extend to all countries of the world trade -restrictive measures 
that do not consider the variety of local conditions, including climate and soil, the different needs 
and challenges and the different technical procedures for approving substances to use in agricultural 
production, which can vary deeply from country to country. In order to effectively protect the 
environment, a broad study would be required, followed by inclusive discussions, in the WTO and/or 
multilateral f ora, which led to individualized diagnosis and national commitments.  
2.251.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan reiterates its concerns 
about the EU's regulation, which lowers the Maximum Residue Levels ("MRLs") of clothianidin and  
thiamethoxam in or on certain products, without due consideration for the concerns expressed 
repeatedly by Japan and other Members at previous TBT Committee meetings. Japan once again 
wishes to emphasize that we do not support using MRLs to achieve enviro nmental purposes. The 
measures adopted by the EU, which lower the MRLs of the two active substances for purposes of 
protecting pollinators outside the EU, clearly deviate from current principles concerning the setting 
of MRLs, which aim to protect human li fe or health, and from efforts toward international 
harmonization of MRLs. Although the EU insists that the measure is not linked directly to the health 
of citizens, Japan believes that when taking a new approach to measures that affect third countries, 
such as MRLs, it should be discussed thoroughly with the relevant third countries at relevant 
international fora, including the SPS Committee. Japan also is concerned about the regulation's 
extra-territorial approach. By uniformly applying the MRLs to produc ts from other countries based 
on the EU's own risk assessment concerning bees, the EU is not respecting the regulatory decisions 
made by each individual country, based on each country's own scientific evidence and deep 
understanding of its own environmenta l conditions and local agricultural practices.  
2.252.   The EU should not make judgments about the appropriateness of the use of specific 
pesticides, under specific conditions, in other countries, through the application of EU measures. 
Last, but not least, the EU  has yet to respond to Japan's questions regarding the unclear 
requirements for setting and applying import tolerances. Paragraph 20 of the preamble to the 
regulation indicates that import tolerances may be set if the applicant provides scientific evidence  
that the use of these two active substances does not adversely impact pollinators. However, the EU 
has not made clear what kind of evidence will be required in the application process, or the criteria 
by which an unacceptable risk to pollinators will be m easured, especially for outdoor uses of these 
substances. Given that this lack of clarity further increases the trade restrictive effect of the 
measure, Japan once again requests that the EU provide a clear explanation of these issues.  
2.253.   The representative o f India provided the following statement. India reiterates its concerns 
regarding lowering of existing MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam by EU. During the last 
meeting, in its reply, the EU acknowledges that non -EU countries may face production condit ions 
and pest pressures different from those in Europe. However, EU has not granted exemption to those 
countries where the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam cannot be avoided due to (a) different 
soil and other production conditions and including pest p ressures and environmental conditions; and 
(b) non -availability of efficacious alternative pest control products. A blanket universal prohibition 
without taking into account the differences in the conditions prevailing in different countries is highly 
inappropriate. India requests EU to develop a methodology whereby difference in the conditions of 
the production and pest pressures are taken into account and appropriate derogations are granted.  
2.254.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. C anada supports Members' 
concerns raised here today and at previous meetings. Canada reiterates its concerns that the EU 
has integrated their environmental objectives into their import tolerance setting process. This will 
have negative and unnecessary impac ts on trade. This approach is unnecessarily trade restrictive 
and does not take into consideration unique circumstances (e.g., climate and growing conditions) 
and risk management measures of exporting countries. As previously shared with the EU, Canada 
has put in place effective mitigation measures that resulted in reduced bee mortality. We would be 
happy to share our data and experience with the EU to ensure MRL and import tolerance decisions 
are based on science and data. If a pesticide does not cause die tary risk, there is no evidence of 
health risks to EU consumers. To that end, if EFSA cannot conclude a risk assessment due to data 
gaps, the EU should maintain the MRLs or harmonize with Codex MRLs. By reducing neonicotinoid 
MRLs to default values when no  dietary risks of concern have been identified, Canada is of the G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 72 - 
 
  opinion that the European Union is unjustifiably applying their domestic legislative requirements 
extraterritorially, and we hope this will not become a pattern that continues.  
2.255.   The representa tive of Argentina  provided the following statement. Argentina reiterates its 
concern about the consistency of this measure with WTO rules. We consider that the measure is 
inappropriate and disproportionate and that the EU's decision is an extraterritorial application of law 
because it clearly has an impact on third party decisions and a totally negative effect on trade, as 
either the European market is lost for certain products that are exported or the use of these 
pesticides must be stopped in the territor y of the exporting countries, even if their use is required 
on account of climate and production conditions, etc., and bees are not affected by them. We 
understand that if the EU did not intend to achieve an application of its measure outside the EU, it 
should have examined other less restrictive measures. We reiterate that the EU has established an 
MRL at the level of detection to protect bees, when MRLs are actually adopted to ensure food safety, 
not to protect the environment. The Codex Alimentarius rece ntly adopted new MRLs for 
neonicotinoids, demonstrating that they are safe for consumers. Argentina considers that the 
measure adopted by the EU to establish limit of quantification values for these neonicotinoids is not 
clearly justified and constitutes a  disguised restriction on international trade within the meaning of 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement because it is disproportionate to the objective that it claims to 
protect and unduly restricts trade as it prevents the marketing of any product that has b een treated 
with these neonicotinoids that may exceed the limit of quantification, even though the EU cannot 
demonstrate that MRLs at the level established by the Codex may affect the health of consumers, 
which ultimately is the intended purpose of an MRL.  
2.256.   The representative of Chile provided the following statement. The delegation of Chile echoes 
the views expressed by Australia, Kenya, the United States, Colombia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, 
Paraguay and the other delegations supporting this STC. Using MRLs fo r clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam, as a means to regulate the use of neonicotinoids in production processes and 
methods in third countries for environmental reasons, would constitute an unjustified restriction on 
trade, since MRLs are not an appropriate or e ffective instrument for achieving environmental 
outcomes. We kindly request the EU to reconsider this Regulation, as it constitutes an inappropriate 
measure on the EU's part to pressure other WTO Members, with the aim of imposing a 
one-size-fits-all approa ch to environmental issues, without taking into account the particular regional 
conditions of producer countries or the negative consequences the Regulation has on the availability 
of effective phytosanitary products used to tackle pests affecting agricult ural crops.  
2.257.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Uruguay would like to 
thank the delegations of the United States, Indonesia, Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Paraguay 
and Kenya for keeping this specific trade concern on the agen da. Uruguay regrets the approval of 
Regulation 2023/334, amending the MRLs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam, despite the 
substantive comments and concerns submitted in all relevant bilateral and multilateral forums by 
many trading partners, representing d ifferent geographical and productive conditions and different 
levels of development. In this regard, we echo the doubts just expressed by the delegation of 
Paraguay on the extent to which the EU effectively takes into account the comments submitted by 
its trading partners in the consultation processes and in other relevant forums. Setting pesticide 
MRLs is a tool designed to protect consumer health from ingestion risks and, therefore, it naturally 
falls within the scope of the SPS Agreement. The internation al reference body for such issues is the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, in which health -related issues are comprehensively addressed in 
relation to the adoption of MRLs, without currently examining, in the relevant risk analyses, aspects 
related to the env ironment. Without prejudice to other standards within the vast and complex 
European regulatory framework, Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, the main and specific 
rule on MRLs for pesticides in food and feed, defines MRLs as: "the upper legal le vel of a 
concentration for a pesticide residue in or on food or feed set in accordance with this Regulation, 
based on good agricultural practice and the lowest consumer exposure necessary to protect 
vulnerable consumers". In this legal provision, there wou ld seem to be a convergence with the view 
expressed by Uruguay and an overwhelming majority of WTO Members on the nature of MRLs, which 
is in line with the assertion repeated by the EU itself - at least until March 2022 - that, as a matter 
of principle, co ncerns regarding the setting of MRLs for pesticides and any specific issue related to 
their application are matters to be discussed in the SPS Committee, and not the TBT Committee.  
2.258.   Uruguay still has serious doubts as to both the relevance and the legal ba sis, in EU 
regulations and WTO standards, of reducing MRLs to the level of detection on the grounds of 
"environmental issues of global concern" or other issues unrelated to human health. While we are G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 73 - 
 
  aware of the importance of environmental aspects, we und erstand that these are not included in the 
process of establishing MRLs, as they are and must be addressed by countries individually in their 
territory using appropriate tools, on the basis of their own productive and regulatory systems, 
environmental cond itions and policies. In this regard, we wish to point out that, in Uruguay, plant 
protection products affected by this Regulation are already regulated by the competent national 
authority to ensure correct, safe and recommended usage, as part of a National  Environment Plan 
focused on good agricultural practices. Uruguay thus shares the concern about promoting the 
protection of pollinators, in line with environmental and biodiversity protection, and supports the 
establishment of regulatory environments based  on scientific criteria, so as to avoid putting food 
security at risk or erecting barriers to trade. In this regard, Uruguay reiterates its willingness to 
cooperate with other Members, including the EU, to find mechanisms that can be used to achieve 
these objectives without unnecessarily restricting trade, while also ensuring environmental 
conservation and protecting human, animal and plant health. Lastly, like other delegations, we are 
concerned that emergency authorizations for the use of these substances  continue to be granted to 
producers from EU member States, which would appear to contradict the EU's stated aim when it 
introduced this measure, as well as being discriminatory in nature. In this connection, we would like 
to have an update from the EU on how emergency authorizations for the use of these substances, 
and possibly others that might be subject to restrictions at the Community level, would be affected 
by the judgment of 19  January 2023 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which  
considers such authorizations to be illegal in certain cases. In this regard, we note with interest the 
cases referred to by the delegation of Paraguay, and we look forward to the EU's comments on the 
matter.  
2.259.   The representative of Guatemala  provided the following statement. Guatemala reiterates its 
trade concern in this regard, since despite having shared its concern about this subject at several 
meetings, none of the concerns Guatemala presented were resolved, nor were its ideas heard. The 
EU is implementing this measure to regulate the use of neonicotinoids in production in third 
countries, which is an extraterritorial approach that fails to recognize the efforts made by countries 
in the area of pollination and the differences among trading  partners like Guatemala, which are not 
on the European continent and face challenges that are typical in tropical countries. I think it is clear 
that there is concern regarding this measure, which I will not repeat because I associate myself with 
the stat ements made by previous Members, in particular as regards the consequent change to MRLs. 
Argentina clearly explained the impact of this measure on the EU's trading partners, and we support 
that view. I will be brief: I would like to ask the European Union to explain how it plans to resolve 
this concern. We need a solution other than import tolerances, which, as Paraguay stated, is not a 
real solution. In light of this, we would appreciate it if the EU could make clear its solution to 
Members' concern regard ing this measure.  
2.260.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU would like to thank the intervening Members for raising this topic. The EU has provided 
detailed information on transitional periods for Maximu m Residue Levels (MRLs) at previous TBT 
Committees, in particular, at the TBT Committee meeting in March and June 2023. The Commission 
Regulation (EU) 2023/334 was adopted and published78 on 2 February 2023. It will become 
applicable from 7 March 2026, to provide enough time to operators in third countries, especially in 
least developed and developing countries, and food business operators, to prepare themselves to 
meet the new requirements. The EU acknowledges that non -EU countries may face production 
conditions and pest pressures different from those in Europe. The EU would like to reiterate that the 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/334 does not regulate the use of clothianidin and 
thiamethoxam by non -EU countries in their own territory. The EU's actions  related to neonicotinoids 
used as pesticides, such as this Regulation, are coordinated with other EU programmes and 
international activities such as: - The EU pollinators initiative which integrates holistic actions on 
pollinators across different sectori al policies, addressing the main known causes for pollinator decline 
and strengthening the collaboration between all the actors concerned. - The active EU collaborations 
with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in its "Global Action  on Pollination 
Services for Sustainable Agriculture" and with the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 
projects to address the decline of pollinators.  
 
78 COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2023/334 of 2 February 2023 amending Annexes II and V to 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council  as regards maximum residue 
levels for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in or on certain products. OJ L 47, 15.2.2023, p. 29 –45. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 74 - 
 
  2.261.   Moreover, promoting the generation and implementation of more sustainable alternatives to 
chemical pesticides is a key element for a global transition towards more sustainable food systems. 
The EU is funding several research projects, under the Horizon Europe programme, dedicated to find 
alternatives to chemical pesticides and combinations of t ools and technologies for integrated pest 
management, including several innovative low -risk products. In addition, the EU finances several 
programmes to assist third countries to comply with EU legislation and to build capacity and 
knowledge, such as the n ew Agrinfo programme (managed by COLEAD - the Committee Linking 
Entrepreneurship Agriculture and Development), further the existing Fit for Market and Plantwise 
Plus programmes to name only a few examples. The EU also organizes specific training courses 
related to plant health, integrated pest management and food safety in relation to pesticide residues. 
The EU would like to thank again intervening Members for their interest in the subject and is ready 
to continue the dialogue on the implementation of the Re gulation in question.  
2.262.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Could the European Union 
highlight any new developments or new information presented with respect to this trade concern as 
the statement is identical to that of the Jun e meeting.  
2.263.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. We take the 
comments into account and we will look at a further update for the next Committee.  
2.1.4.25   European Union - Draft Commission Regulation laying down ecodesign 
requirem ents for mobile phones, cordless phones and slate tablets pursuant to Directive 
2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, G/TBT/N/EU/918  (ID 
76879) 
2.264.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. The Korean 
government appreciates the opportunity to deliver its comments on the European Union's 
"Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1670 laying down ecodesign requirements for smartphones, 
mobile phones other than smartpho nes, cordless phones and slate tablets pursuant to Directive 
2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council." Korea would like to express our 
gratitude to the EU for reviewing Korea's comments made in the previous TBT Committee meeting 
in June a nd an official letter submitted in August. However, some industry concerns remain 
unresolved, and Korea requests that the EU reconsider these outstanding issues and address the 
industry concerns. First, for foldable devices, Korea requests that the EU allo w "foldable -related 
spare parts" (i.e. the Hinge assembly, the Mechanical display folding mechanism and the 
Battery( -ies)) to be supplied as combined with the Display Assembly. If the device passes the 
folding -unfolding durability test of over 150,000 cycl es, meets the IP47 rating, and its battery 
demonstrates at least 83% of the rated capacity after 500 full charge -discharge cycles, supplying 
related spare parts in conjunction with a higher -level assembly will better ensure the durability and 
reliability o f the folding feature.  
2.265.   Second, for foldable devices, Korea requests that the dust tight rating requirement be scaled 
down to IP47. Due to the inevitable slits for movability, the dust tight rating achievable by current 
commercialized foldable devices is I P4x. Third, for functionality updates of Operating Systems (OS), 
it is requested that either the mandatory provision period be shortened to 3 years, or the 
commencing point of the mandatory period be changed to the market release date. Excessive 
requiremen ts on the OS update period may delay the introduction of new innovative technologies or 
cause unnecessary price increases of the physical device, limiting consumers' right to choose from 
a wide range of the latest products and services.  
2.266.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. 1. For (EU) 2023/1670 Annex 
II B/D 1.1 (5) (a), it requires that the process for replacement of display assembly shall, as a 
minimum, be able to be carried out by a generalist, while 1.1 (5) (b) requires 1 (c) the  spare parts 
except for the battery needs to be replaced by layman, and the list of spare parts in 1 (c) contains 
the display assembly again. The two requirements are contradictory. We recommend that the EU 
further clarify the requirements and, in view of the professionalism of the replacement display 
assembly, we recommend following the 1.1 (5) (a) requirements. 2. For (EU) 2023/1670 Annex II 
B/D 1.1 (6), "accessible" is not defined in the draft, which is easy to misunderstand. Manufacturers 
have doubts ab out which form of representation can be identified as "accessible". To facilitate 
enterprise compliance, please further clarify. 3. Regarding (EU)2023/1670Annex II B 1.2 (6)(a) and 
 
79 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 768. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 75 - 
 
  Annex II D 1.2 (5)(a), it requires that from the date of end of placement o n the market to at least 
5 years after that date, manufacturers, importers or authorized representatives shall, if they provide 
security updates, corrective updates or functionality updates to an operating system, make such 
updates available at no cost. Th is clause poses challenges in terms of enforcement. (1) It is 
recommended that the EU further clarify whether the upgrade of the Android major version also 
satisfies the aforementioned requirements? (2) The implementation of the system update service 
relies on technical support from the operating system and chipset platform, so it is recommended 
that the EU consider constraints not only on manufacturers but also on operating systems and chip 
suppliers.  
2.267.   4. Regarding (EU)2023/1670 Annex II/D 1.1 (1), the ava ilability period of spare parts has 
been extended from 5 years (in draft regulation) to 7 years now. It is recommended that the EU 
could reassess the input -output benefits and consider shortening this period. Extending the 
availability period of spare part s to improve maintainability can be helpful, but it puts a great burden 
on enterprises as manufacturers need to establish production lines of spare parts or store a large 
number of them with continuous updates and iterations. It would also lead to electron ic waste when 
spare parts fail. Therefore, it is recommended that the EU could evaluate the input -output benefits 
and consider shortening the availability period of spare parts. 5. The detachable requirements of 
battery in regulation (EU)2023/1670 are inco nsistent with regulation (EU)2023/1542. It is 
recommended to clarify. (1) Article 11 of Regulation (EU)2023/1542 states that all portable batteries 
should be removable and detachable by the end user during their life cycle, without any exemptions. 
Accordin g to the definition of portable batteries, batteries of mobile phones and tablets are 
considered portable batteries. With regard to regulation (EU)2023/1670, it states that 
manufacturers, importers, or authorized representatives may provide the battery or batteries only 
to professional repairers if the battery endurance in cycles achieves a minimum of 1,000 full charge 
cycles, and the device meets IP67 rating. (2) The availability period of battery spare parts for 
portable products is within 5 years after t he date of end of placement on the market; whereas, in 
regulation (EU)2023/1670, the requirement for the availability period is 7 years.  
2.268.   6. For Annex II B/D 1.3, it requires plastic components shall be marked by the appropriate 
standard symbols or abbrevi ated terms set. It is recommended that the EU could provide 
recommended standards for symbols with reference to (EU)2019/2021, facilitating the 
implementation of the industry. 7. Regarding paragraph 3 of (EU)2023/1669 ANNEX IX, it is 
recommended that the b attery endurance in cycles for compliance verification be independent of the 
operating system version. Due to the lengthy battery endurance in cycles and constraints in the 
product development timeline, batteries are typically conducted separately by testi ng methods 
referred to in Annex Iva of 2023/1669, rather than through comprehensive system -level testing 
based on operating systems. It is advisable to maintain consistency in market supervision verification 
procedures.  
2.269.   In response, the representative of t he European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU would like to thank the Delegations of the Republic of Korea and China for their continued 
comments on the draft Ecodesign measures for mobile phones, cordless phones and slate tablets 
pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. The additional 
comments received are detailed and require technical interpretation, which could not be ensured in 
the context of this plenary meeting. The EU could therefore provide more information in bilateral 
discussion. Further, the EU would like to reassure China and Korea that a written reply to these 
comments is currently being finalised and will soon be sent to your TBT enquiry points. The Ecodesign 
Regulation on mobile phones and tablets80 and Energy Labelling Regulation on smartphones and 
tablets81 were published on the Official Journal of the European Union on 31 August 2023. A dialogue 
with manufacturers to provide clarifications on the Regulation was set up. A first informal me eting 
was held with manufacturers on 11 October 2023 and Korean and Chinese companies participated 
as well. Any other Chinese or Korean company, which may be interested in this exchange is welcome 
to join this discussion.  
 
80 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1670/oj   
81 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R1669   G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 76 - 
 
  2.1.4.26   European Union - Proposal for a R egulation on packaging and packaging waste 
amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing 
Directive 94/62/EC, G/TBT/N/EU/953  (ID 78682) 
2.270.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement. The delegation of Me xico 
refers to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging 
and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and 
repealing Directive 94/62/EC, which was notified by the EU to m embers of this Committee in 
document G/TBT/N/EU/953 . While the Government of Mexico agrees that promoting sustainable 
practices is important, it must be expected that technical regulations will affect foreign industries. 
In this regard, the delegatio n of Mexico would like to voice the following concerns and requests. 
Taking into consideration that bottling in Mexican territory is a necessary requirement in the 
production of 100% agave tequila, the Regulation could constitute a barrier to the marketing  of 
Mexican beverages. Moreover, it is important to highlight that packaging differences are key to 
preventing counterfeiting. This becomes complicated when marketing aspects are disregarded and 
when the packaging performance criteria fail to recognize dif ferences in design or presentation. 
Accordingly, we request that all products protected by geographical indications and appellations of 
origin, including tequila, be exempt from compliance with the packaging performance criteria set out 
in Annex IV to the Regulation. Lastly, the delegation of Mexico refers to the amendment related to 
the "additional sustainability requirements", which could lead to greater fragmentation of the 
European market, creating additional costs for foreign exporting producers. The d elegation of Mexico 
thanks the delegation of the European Union for giving its consideration to this statement.  
2.271.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. 1. Regarding the requirements 
for labelling of packaging, it is recommended to uni fy the current labelling system at the EU level, 
coordinating all existing requirements of member States. The European Union, as a single market, 
faces challenges arising from divergent requirements among member States, resulting in 
inconsistent compliance  and impeding the free movement of goods while burdening operators. In 
light of this legislation's objective to establish harmonized regulations at the EU level, it is 
recommended to coordinate the current labelling system and stipulate member states' unif orm 
adherence to Article 11. Furthermore, it is suggested that material composition information and 
recycled content could be displayed through digital identification such as QR codes. 2. Regarding 
Article 9, it is recommended to revise the assessment of p ackaging minimization by excluding the 
fillings as empty spaces and introducing an exemption clause for packaging protected by trademarks 
and IPR protection. The fillings are used to provide more reliable protection for the product. If they 
are minimized a s empty space, the manufacturer will lack effective ways to ensure safe 
transportation of the goods, which may result in accidental damage. Meanwhile, the regulation 
stipulates an exemption for packaging that should display a geographical indication of ori gin. It is 
suggested to exempt packaging that is safeguarded by trademarks and IPR protection. 3. With 
regard to the definition of transport packaging, it is recommended to further clarify the definition of 
terms and provide guidance including specific exa mples. 4. Regarding requirements for recycled 
content of plastic packaging, it is suggested to simplify the calculation method of recycled 
content(e.g., by establishing a minimum recycling content requirement based on the average value 
of packaging placed in the EU market by manufacturers within a specific period). It is also advisable 
not to impose recycled plastic content requirements on electronic and electrical products, particularly 
those directly in contact with the product. The current mainstream tec hnology does not support the 
design of plastic packaging that can utilize recycled materials, and the performance and appearance 
of recycled plastic packaging fail to meet the requirements. Additionally, electronic and electrical 
products often contain num erous sensitive devices. Due to the complex source, recycled plastics 
may introduce various ions, which can result in ion pollution of electronic components and ultimately 
functional failure.  
2.272.   5. Article 21 stipulates that the empty space ratio for grouped  packaging and transport 
packaging (including e -commerce packaging) should not exceed 40%. It is recommended to 
eliminate the aforementioned requirements on empty space ratio. The empty space ratio of 
transportation packaging and e -commerce packaging canno t be below 40%. In the case of 
purchasing multiple products at once for e -commerce or express packaging, the variety of products 
and the limited size of general packaging often result in a high empty space ratio. The final quantity 
of boxes also poses a ch allenge in meeting the empty space ratio, therefore it is advisable to avoid 
imposing mandatory demands. 6. Chapter 4, Article 26/1 specifies reusable and repeatable filling 
 
82 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 786. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 77 - 
 
  targets: By 2030, reusable packaging should be used for shipping 90% of large appl iances. It is not 
recommended to set the reusable index for the packaging of electronic and electrical products. The 
majority of electronic and electrical products in EU rely on imports. Considering the climate and 
environmental impact throughout their lif e cycle, it is not necessarily optimal for the environment to 
prioritize packaging reuse. 7. For Annex VII, it is recommended to delete the conceptual design and 
drawing requirements for providing components, sub -components, circuits, etc. The regulation 
should regulate the conformity assessment of the packaging, however, the components, circuit 
diagrams and other documents are generally provided for the conformity assessment of the 
electronic and electrical equipment.  
2.273.   The representative of the Russian Fede ration  provided the following statement. The Russian 
Federation refers to its statement at previous TBT Committee meeting with regard to the EU Proposal 
for a Regulation on packaging and packaging waste. Over the past Committee meetings we raised 
certain q uestions in respect of the EU proposal, such as the inconsistency of the proposed 
requirements with international standards, the absence of approved at the international level test 
methods confirming the safety of the use of recycled materials, as well as the absence of scientific 
evidence for the proposed requirements. All these questions remain valid. In this context, the 
Russian Federation once again underlines that the proposed Regulation seems to be inconsistent 
with WTO rules and may create significan t uncertainty in the EU market, as well as unnecessary 
obstacles to international trade. We urge the EU to revise draft Regulation on packaging and 
packaging waste and bring it into compliance with WTO rules.  
2.274.   The representative of India provided the follow ing statement. India took note of EU's 
response in the last TBT meeting that EU will provide reply to Members' concerns on how it is 
planning to address the gaps in legislative framework and implementation process. While India 
appreciates EU's thoughts tow ards addressing environmental concerns, however, India also believes 
that any proposal in this regard should take into account the complexity of business sectors in 
question and appropriate packaging solutions. In this regard, India awaits EU to share the relevant 
international standard which has been used as a basis for the proposed regulation. India also 
requests EU to share its analysis on which the discretionary space of the economic operators has 
been taken into account.  
2.275.   The representative of Guatemala  provided the following statement. With regard to this trade 
concern, there are certain elements that we believe should be analysed further and in greater detail. 
Guatemala would therefore be grateful if this matter could be addressed and the definitions 
contained in the draft Regulation carefully assessed. For example, Articles 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 
establish the guidelines for the conformity assessment of packaging. However, they do not specify 
which authority is competent to carry out the assessment and provide authorization. It would appear 
that there is uncertainty regarding the criteria for this assessment, which leaves open the possibility 
of having multiple criteria. In addition, Article 13.5 indicates that packaging must bear an 
identification numbe r, such as a batch number. However, in the case of reusable packaging, on 
which the batch number is printed by laser, the previous batch number cannot be erased, which will 
lead to problems with new products and may cause confusion when tracing them. We th erefore ask 
for account to be taken of these aspects and characteristics of reusable packaging on which the 
batch number has been printed by laser. Article 11 mentions the requirement for a label, but it is 
unclear to us whether it is referring to an addit ional label supplementing the one carried by the 
product, such as when a product already placed on the market has a QR code. We also ask whether 
the same QR code can be used to provide information on the packaging materials. We would 
appreciate clarificati on from the EU regarding our concerns, with a view to advancing trade and 
ensuring that it is also beneficial for trading partners. We would appreciate clarification in this regard.  
2.276.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the followi ng statement. 
The EU thanks Members for their interest in the proposal for a Regulation on packaging and 
packaging waste amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing 
Directive 94/62/EC. The EU notified the proposed Regulati on under the TBT Agreement on 
27 February 2023. The EU received comments on this proposal from several Members, including 
from China, Japan, the US, the UK and Canada. We thank Members for their interest and constructive 
comments, to which we have recently  replied. We believe that these replies will provide Members 
with sufficient information, regarding their concerns. It is currently too early to predict the exact 
date of adoption of this proposal. The EU internal procedures are in motion to reach an agree ment 
in 2024 before the end of the current legislature mandate. The final act, once adopted, will be notified 
to the TBT Committee.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 78 - 
 
  2.1.4.27   India - Viscose Staple Fibres (Quality Control) Order, 2022, G/TBT/N/IND/234  
(ID 79083) 
2.277.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The policy of 
adopting Quality Control Orders (QCOs) across sectors continues to send worrying signals to EU 
industry, EU investors and EU member States, as majority of the QCOs int roduced by India appear 
to have protectionist orientation and raise questions in relation to their compliance with the WTO's 
TBT Agreement obligations. The EU remains deeply concerned by the fact that QCOs usually 
prescribe India specific standards, where international standards already exist. Furthermore, they 
make mandatory conformity assessment procedures that are more stringent and restrictive than 
necessary to fulfil their legitimate objective. The EU welcomes detailed information provided by India 
in its statement at the previous TBT Committee meeting, however, significant issues faced by EU 
exporters remain and cause significant problems in accessing the Indian market. The EU would like 
to recall its request to India to explain the reasons for establi shing India -specific QCO for Viscose 
Staple Fibres when EU exports already comply with internationally recognised standards like ISO. 
The Viscose Staple Fibres QCO, is based on a registration process with the Bureau of Indian 
Standards (BIS). Manufacturing  facilities in the exporting country must be audited in person by a 
team of BIS officials.  
2.278.   The EU is deeply concerned not only about the significant cost of such registration, but also 
by the requirement to disclose commercially sensitive information rega rding pricing and production, 
as well as a requirement to make a USD 10.000 bank guarantee in favour of BIS, which is held as a 
"quality performance guarantee". The proposed measures for Viscose Staple Fibres require products 
to be tested twice, including local audits and designated laboratory tests. This represents additional 
burden to the EU industry related to registration, bank -guarantee, testing and certification. The 
certification process is costly, burdensome and includes requirements to submit comme rcially 
sensitive information. The products covered by this Order do not present risk to health and safety, 
as they are subject to a detailed testing for safety and quality control in the EU before being 
exported. For this reason, the mandatory certificati on by the BIS is considered as unnecessary. The 
QCO in question is not in line with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which states that Members shall 
ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the 
effect o f creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Furthermore, as a bank guarantee is 
required for all imported products, the QCO appears to run against Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, 
according to which Members shall ensure that in respect of tec hnical regulations, products imported 
from the territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded 
to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country.  
2.279.   It is worth recalling that EU-based producers of man -made fibres already comply with a wide 
range of quality, safety, and environmental protection related certifications and standards, such as 
ISO 9001, 14001, and 45001, EU Ecolabel and European Pharmacopoeia. The EU reiterates its 
request to India to re -consider the current standard and conformity assessment procedures set in 
this QCO and to consider aligning the BIS standards and conformity assessment procedures with 
international standards and approaches, as well as to accept test  certificates issued outside India 
based on ISO standards. The EU would also like to point out that mandatory affixing of the ISI mark 
is redundant and results in excessive certification costs, while strict packaging requirements 
constrain innovation and e ven limit the use of more environmentally friendly materials. In addition, 
the EU once more requests India to clarify the scope of the product(s) under the Quality Control 
Orders by clearly indicating in the QCO the HS code(s) of the goods concerned. The E U regrets that 
the entry into force of this QCO was not deferred and entered into force on the 29 March 2023. 
Article 2.12 of the WTO TBT Agreement requires a reasonable interval between the publication of 
technical regulations and their entry into force i n order to allow time for producers to adapt their 
products or methods of production to the new requirements. The EU would also like to recall that 
according to the 2001 WTO Ministerial Decision on Implementation -related Issues and Concerns, 
Ministers agre ed that the phrase "reasonable interval" shall be understood to mean normally a period 
of not less than six months, except when this would be ineffective in fulfilling the legitimate 
objectives pursued. The EU remains open to discuss this matter bilaterall y at the experts' level.  
2.280.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia reiterates its 
concern regarding the implementation of Viscose Staple Fibres (Quality Control) Order, 2022. Since 
December 2022, Indonesian companies have applied to BIS for the certification process for VSF 
 
83 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 790. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 79 - 
 
  product. However, as of today, BIS has not yet conducted any factory inspections to Indonesian VSF 
companies without any explanation and clarity regarding the verification schedule. Indonesia deeply 
regrets this delay in on -site inspections as it has resulted in significant losses to Indonesia's VSF 
industry. Moreover, since the enforcement of the VSF QCO on 29 March 2023, Indonesian companies 
have not been able to export to India at all because certifica tion has not yet been carried out. This 
condition causes uncertainty in trade operations and harms the rights and business interests of our 
industry. Indonesia also questioned the different treatment of Indonesian companies. Based on 
information from Indon esian companies, there are already several companies from other countries 
that have conducted factory inspections. In addition, BIS has also conducted factory inspections of 
several Indonesian companies that produce other textile products besides VSF. We e xpect India to 
be able to give equal treatment to every company that will be certified. We urge India to implement 
the QCO system in a manner in compliance with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of TBT Agreement. And once 
again, Indonesia requests India to consider the  option of international recognition under the 
MRA/MLA framework for conformity assessment results and/or conformity assessment bodies from 
the country of origin. This will speed up the certification process, avoid duplication of testing and 
certification procedures, and may reduce the cost of conformity assessment. Indonesia sincerely 
hopes that India could response to the enquiry we sent on 11 August 2023 related to this issue.  
2.281.   In response, the representative of India provided the following statement. We would refer 
to the statement made on this issue in the previous Committee on TBT meeting where we had 
provided specific details on the dates for this QCO, the licences granted and the rationale for bank 
guarantees. It may be noted that the conformity asses sment requirements (like affixing of IS mark 
on goods and packaging) as specified in the draft QCOs are equally applicable to domestic 
manufactures as well as foreign manufacturers who intend to export their products to India. We also 
thank EU for the ongo ing bilateral engagement on this issue.  
2.1.4.28   China - Interim Regulation on Radio Management of Wireless Charging (Power 
Transmission) Equipment, G/TBT/N/CHN/1711  (ID 78484) 
2.282.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The U nited States 
would like to express continued concerns today with China's Interim Regulations on Radio 
Management of Wireless Charging Equipment. As China published the final regulation in June, will 
additional implementing measures be forthcoming? Can Chin a offer an anticipated timeline for any 
additional implementing measures or guidelines? We ask that China notify any relevant 
implementing measures to the TBT Committee. In June we noted that the scope of the draft 
regulation was non -radio equipment that r adiates radio waves, including the energy transmitter 
connected to the power supply and the power receiver acting on the load. We thank China for its 
confirmation in June that the frequency only defines that of the transmitter and not the receiving 
device.  Aside from this, the United States maintains several of our concerns, given the significant 
impact this measure may have on international trade. First, China's TBT notification stated that the 
objective and rationale for issuing this draft is for quality requirements and harmonization. However, 
one of the frequency ranges China adopted is not included in the relevant ITU -R standard (SM.2129). 
Can China please explain why it has included this additional frequency range (13553 -13567kHZ) 
that is not in the pu blished international standard? China has indicated that its rationale for allowing 
only the three specified frequency bands stems in part from a lack of compatibility analysis between 
those bands and others to ensure the avoidance of harmful interference but that the regulation is 
subject to future adjustments per advancement of industry and technology. Both ITU -R and the 
Wireless Power Consortium have examined interference issues as part of the development process 
for the SM.2129 and Qi 2.0 standards, res pectively. Will China commit to reevaluating additional 
frequency ranges that may be included in these standards, once they are finalized?  
2.283.   Second, regarding electric vehicle wireless charging equipment, we note that the SAE 
International has developed sta ndard J2954, and standard J2954/2. Could China explain how it 
considered these standards when developing its draft measure? We request that China use these 
two standards as a basis for its regulation. Third, has China conducted a regulatory impact 
assessme nt on the potential negative environmental and climate impacts of limiting the frequency 
ranges? As we understand it, chargers that operate at the frequency range of 315 -400 kHZ and 
1.7-1.9MHZ for portable devices, which would not comply with the proposed measure, are able to 
consume less overall energy due to their quick charging ability and are already in use by millions of 
devices in many markets. Fourth, regarding product labelling, C hina indicated in its June response 
 
84 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 784. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 80 - 
 
  that it would allow for "special identification" on outer packaging or in the product instructions under 
certain conditions. This is helpful, but we urge China to consider allowing for the information to be 
displayed ele ctronically and to include this in any subsequent implementing guidance. Finally, China 
also indicated that it will set up a reasonable transition period and will continue to allow the sale of 
existing products produced or imported until the end of that tr ansition period.  
2.284.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan has ongoing concerns 
with regard to China's Interim Regulations on Radio Management of Wireless Charging (Power 
Transmission) Equipment. The Interim Regulations stipulate  the frequencies which wireless charging 
(power transmission) equipment must comply with. Those are three frequency bands, namely 
100-148.5 kHz, 6765 -6795 kHz and 13553 -13567 kHz. Japan appreciates China's comments at the 
last TBT Committee meeting that it  had specified those frequency bands based on relevant 
recommendations from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the development 
status of the industry. However, since Japan's concerns are still not resolved, Japan once again 
wishes to raise  this STC. First, although the Qi2.0, the international standard provided by the 
Wireless Power Consortium (WPC), was already released in April 2023, and the Qi2.0 includes 
360 kHz as a frequency for wireless charging, China's interim regulations do not in clude this 
frequency band. Also, China's regulations do not include any of the multiple frequency bands such 
as 315 -400 kHz and 1700 -1800 kHz, which the ITU has decided to include in its revised international 
standards. Therefore, it is hard to say that Ch ina has adequately used the relevant international 
standards as a basis for the Interim Regulations, and we also believe they would be inconsistent 
with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.  
2.285.   Additionally, China explained that the purposes for introducing the Interim Regulations are 
to regulate the use of wireless charging (power transmission) equipment, to avoid harmful 
interference to services complying with the law, and to maintain order for radio waves. However, 
the Qi2.0 of the WPC and the revised ITU -R guidance as international standards are established 
based on the consensus of members including China to justifiably maintain order for radio waves, 
so by complying with the international standards, the purposes of the Interim Regulations given by 
China can be supposed to be achieved. Therefore, as stated above, since products complying with 
the international standards can achieve the purposes of the Interim Regulations, the Interim 
Regulations which prohibit the import, sale and use of products complying wit h the international 
standards are likely to be an unnecessarily trade -restrictive measure and may violate Article 2.2 of 
the TBT Agreement. Japan continues to request China to use international standards as a basis for 
formulating the Interim Regulations o n Radio Management of Wireless Charging (Power 
Transmission) Equipment so as not to become more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
2.286.   In response, the representative of China  provided the following statement. The regulation 
was officially released in May 2023 and will be formally implemented in September 2024. In the 
future, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology will release additional implementing 
measures about the requirements for dedicated identification. With regards to the operating 
frequenc y ranges of mobile and portable wireless charging equipment, MIIT has specified three 
frequency bands including the 13000kHz band, based on relevant recommendations from ITU, the 
industry's development status, and the result of the test experiment. At pres ent, frequency ranges 
outside these three bands lack sufficient compatibility and sharing study, which may cause harmful 
interference to incumbent services and deployed systems. MIIT has been keeping close attention to 
the dynamics of ITU standards, and wi ll timely adjust the regulation's relevant contents in the future, 
according to the ITU's newest standard, industry development and technology evolution.  
2.1.4.29   Ireland - Draft Regulations Under Section 12 of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 
2018, G/TBT/N/IRL/4 ; Related to Previously Raised STC ID 516 (ID 79485) 
2.287.   The representative of Mexico  provided the following statement. The Mexican delegation 
refers to Ireland's Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 2022, notified to the members of 
this Committee in document G/TBT/N/IRL/4 . The delegation of Mexico also refers to the 
communication sent by the Government of Mexico to the Government of Ireland on 3 April 2023, in 
which it made comments on the Regulations that focused on the following. The Governme nt of 
Mexico's concern regarding the disruption to  harmonized EU legislation and the fragmentation of 
the region's market that the Regulations could cause, thereby hampering international trade, and 
regarding the divergence between the Irish Regulations a nd Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 in terms 
 
85 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 794. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 81 - 
 
  of the requirements for declaring energy value and alcohol content. In this connection, the delegation 
of Mexico asks that the delegation of Ireland provide: The technical and scientific evidence forming 
the basis f or the wording of the health warnings proposed in the Regulations; Information on any 
alternative measures to labelling alcoholic beverages that were considered as a means of addressing 
the issue in a less trade -restrictive way. Lastly, the delegation of M exico requests the Government 
of Ireland provide a reply to the comments submitted during the public consultations on the 
Regulations. The delegation of Mexico thanks the delegation of Ireland for giving its consideration 
to this statement.  
2.288.   The representat ive of Colombia  provided the following statement. First, like Mexico, 
Colombia would like to say that it agrees with the objective of making relevant health information 
available to consumers in order to assist them in making more sound decisions regarding  alcohol 
consumption. Nevertheless, Colombia would like to express its trade concern regarding the Draft 
Regulations under Section 12 of the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, notified in document 
G/TBT/N/IRL/4 , which refer to the information that label s of alcoholic beverages must contain. While 
we understand that this draft has already been enacted as a Public Health Act, we would appreciate, 
in application of the principle of transparency, a response to the comments that Colombia submitted 
on 4 May th rough its contact point, to which we will now add the following points: Scientific and 
technical evidence supporting the warnings proposed in the Regulations; the discrepancy between 
the requirements imposed by Ireland and European Union law, in terms of h ow alcohol content is 
displayed (grams vs percentage of alcohol by volume); and the need for a mechanism to enable the 
use of similar labels approved in third countries, including the European Union, without changing the 
labelling. We would appreciate clar ification on how alcohol and energy content is being dealt with, 
in accordance with existing European Union legislation. The Regulations, once implemented, will 
affect trade by requiring exporters to produce specific labels for the Irish market, generating  
additional costs and affecting the ability to redirect products within the European market. For this 
reason, Colombia would like to know how the comments made by countries during the consultation 
process were taken into account and, on that basis, would a ppreciate constructive and open dialogue 
to address these issues by seeking mutually beneficial solutions.  
2.289.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
supports Ireland's objective of combatting harmful alcoho l consumption and communicating 
important health information to consumers to assist more informed decision -making about alcohol 
consumption. Even though the Ireland Public Health (Alcohol) (Labeling) Bill was finalized and signed 
into law in May 2023, we w ould like to reiterate our concerns about the potential for this legislation 
to cause trade disruptions. While we would like to thank Ireland for notifying its bill to the WTO on 
6 February with a 90 -day comment period, the United States remains deeply con cerned that Ireland 
finalized this measure on 22 May 2023; a mere two weeks following the end of the WTO comment 
period. Displaying information in grams could also potentially confuse the consumer and not send a 
clearer health signal, as has been asserted.  We would appreciate information on any assessments 
undertaken related to consumer understanding of labelling alcohol content in grams per container. 
In addition, the labels do not include information about the amount of product being measured, i.e., 
full container, 100 ml, or specific serving size. If energy and alcohol content is supposed to be 
representative of a full container, there is a question about the utility of this type of information and 
the potential to confuse consumers. Has Ireland considere d adjusting its requirements to include 
clarifying information regarding the amount of product? We understand the EU is planning to revise 
the Food Information to Consumers (FIC) regulation. In this revision, will the EU set uniform alcohol 
labelling requi rements to harmonize discrepancies across EU member States? We look forward to 
receiving Ireland's response to our comments.  
2.290.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia thanks the 
European Union for their engagement regardin g this trade concern. Australia recognizes the 
importance of labelling to promote consumer awareness and public health, but remains concerned 
Ireland's new alcohol labelling regulations could impact trade and undermine the concept of the 
European single ma rket. We note the EU advised a sticker may be affixed to the container of the 
alcohol product to meet Irish requirements. We suggest this remains a barrier and creates 
unnecessary burden for exporters. We also note the European Union advised they are going  to review 
food labelling rules, including the labelling of alcoholic beverages. We suggest this initiative will 
achieve a similar objective to Ireland's alcohol labelling regulations while not undermining the 
European single market. Indeed, Ireland's regu lations may further complicate the implementation 
of future European Union requirements in this area. Ensuring consistency in labelling between 
Ireland and other EU member States is important in reducing unnecessary barriers to trade. Australia G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 82 - 
 
  supports co ncerns raised on this issue and is willing to work with the Government of Ireland to 
resolve this matter.  
2.291.   The representative of Chile provided the following statement. The delegation of Chile would 
like to thank Mexico, Colombia and the United States for t he opportunity to refer to Ireland's draft 
Public Health Regulations of 2022 on the labelling of alcoholic beverages, notified to this Committee 
in document G/TBT/N/IRL/4 , which concern measures relating to warnings and health information 
that must be d isplayed on alcoholic beverage containers. My delegation submitted comments 
through the Technical Barriers to Trade contact point, which so far have not been addressed by the 
delegation of Ireland. In our comments on the notification, we informed Ireland o f our concern 
regarding the health warning requirements set out in Part 2 of the Regulations. These requirements 
directly link the consumption of alcohol to the development of deadly neoplastic diseases such as 
cancer, while failing to make any distinction s as regards consumption levels or other risky behaviours 
associated with the consumption of alcohol. We consider that these provisions obstruct trade, as 
there is no conclusive evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is the direct cause of liver cancer  
or other deadly cancers. In light of the foregoing, the Regulations create unnecessary technical 
barriers to trade, particularly Article 2.2 of the Regulations. We hope that the Government of Ireland 
will welcome and respond to the comments we have submit ted through its TBT/WTO contact point.  
2.292.   The representative of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand shares 
the concerns of other parties surrounding the Irish Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 
2023. We continue to emphasise  the questions that we laid out in the previous Committee, which 
we consider have not yet been addressed by Ireland or the EU. In particular, we note our concern 
that the measure requires parties to express a product's quantity of grams and energy on the 
labelling differently to the European Commission's Regulation 2021/2117, while achieving 
substantively the same outcome. We seek clarification from Ireland on whether it has considered 
alternatives to enable the Regulations to be less trade restrictive on i mports from Ireland's trading 
partners. For example, has Ireland considered aligning its Regulations with EU Regulation? New 
Zealand also wants to highlight for Ireland's continued consideration the potential for these 
measures to affect stock in trade fro m other countries. While New Zealand understands the new 
measures do not come into effect until 22 May 2026, we note that wine has a very long shelf -life 
and there may be old, and high -value, stock already in trade (such as from older vintage stock in 
cellars) that does not display Ireland's required warnings and energy information. New Zealand 
would appreciate clarification from Ireland on how it intends to ensure these regulations do not 
unintentionally prohibit trade of such old stock.  
2.293.   The representative  of Argentina  provided the following statement. Argentina would like to 
thank the delegations that included this trade concern on the meeting agenda and Ireland for its 
notification. Argentina recognizes the importance of informing consumers about alcohol 
consumption. At the national level, both the National Grape -Growing and Wine Production Institute 
and the industry have promoted the concept of responsible consumption, with the aim of reducing 
the impact of alcohol consumption on non -communicable diseases , based on the premise that 
consumer education is the most appropriate tool for achieving this aim. Although Argentina 
understands that the warnings under the Irish regulations are intended to inform consumers about 
alcohol consumption, we believe that the y may unnecessarily harm trade and that they might not 
take account of differences between alcoholic beverages, in terms of their alcohol content in 
particular, but also their composition. We therefore encourage Ireland to consider other strategies 
to prom ote moderate and responsible drinking that do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
2.294.   The representative of Guatemala  provided the following statement. We recognize the 
objectives of combating alcohol abuse and ensuring that Irish consumers are directly  informed of 
alcohol -related health risks and receive support in making healthier choices with regard to alcohol 
consumption. However, as has already been pointed out by other Members, there are concerns 
about the Regulations because their implementation c ould create an unnecessary barrier to trade. 
We request Ireland to consider the following: We request that Ireland revise the warning statement 
so as to address health risks in general, providing information in an accurate and clear manner in 
accordance wi th current research. We request that products that feature similar pictographic 
pregnancy -related warnings be recognized without requiring a change of label. We urge Ireland to 
ensure that information on alcohol content and energy is provided in accordance  with Regulation 
(EU) No. 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. In addition, we ask Ireland 
to clarify why the quantity of grams of alcohol needs to be provided, contrary to EU regulations. We G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 83 - 
 
  encourage Ireland to consider alternativ es, such as QR codes or websites, to inform consumers of 
the risks associated with alcohol consumption.  
2.295.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU would like to thank the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, 
Argentina and Guatemala for their comments on the Irish proposal under Section 12 of the Public 
Health Act of 2018. First, the EU would like to apologize once again for the delay in providing a reply. 
In light of the detailed  and numerous questions asked, the EU's assessment has taken longer than 
expected. The EU hopes to finalize these replies and send them to your TBT enquiry points soon. 
Second, the Irish Regulations at issue aim to communicate in simple and direct terms in formation 
to the consumer on the content of the alcohol product as part of a series of public health measures. 
Data reported by Ireland provide a particularly alarming picture as regards, inter alia, the significant 
incidence of deaths and disease, includi ng cancer which are directly related to the consumption of 
alcohol in Ireland, the lack of awareness among the national population of the health risks associated 
with alcohol consumption, as well as high proportion of drinkers reporting a hazardous level o f 
consumption. The design of the label and related statements was informed by the available national 
and international evidence on the most effective messaging. More information can be found in the 
document "Notification and Justification" notified togethe r with the notified draft. Furthermore, the 
Covid -19 crisis demonstrated that closing premises where one can consume alcoholic beverages only 
demonstrated a marginal impact on reducing average alcohol consumption in Ireland.  
2.296.   In addition, the measure was d esigned with the aim to minimize the impact on cross -border 
trade. In fact, the health warnings, symbols and information can be attached to containers by using 
a sticker allowing for some flexibility on how the information will be provided. The labelling d oes not 
have to be carried out during the manufacturing process and products can be imported without the 
information on the label. Health warnings are only mandatory when sold to consumers, not when 
imported into Ireland. The mandatory minimum dimensions o f the health information and warnings 
are set small and the requirement to provide a pregnancy warning can be met by simply displaying 
an image without the need for accompanying text. Furthermore, there is a three -year transition 
period for the measure. It  won't go into effect until 22 May 2026 and this three -year lead -in time is 
to give businesses the time to prepare for the changes. On a final note, the EU has indeed announced 
its intention to review its food labelling rules under the regulation on Food I nformation to Consumers 
Regulation, including the labelling of alcoholic beverages. However, we are still very early in the 
process. Currently the preparatory work and evidence -gathering are in progress with the preparation 
of an impact assessment.  
2.1.4.30   India - Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles, G/TBT/N/IND/20 , 
G/TBT/N/IND/20/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/IND/40 , G/TBT/N/IND/40/Rev.1  (ID 13386) 
2.297.   The representative of Indonesia  provided the following statement. Indonesia would like to 
reiterate its concern on Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes for Automotive Vehicles as raised in previous 
TBT Committee meeting. By this time, Indonesia have not received an appropriate response and 
solutio n to this problem. Indonesia is aware that India has imposed import restrictions on tyre 
products with certain types and size categories that can be produced by tire manufacturers in India. 
The policy was implemented shortly after India imposed a temporary  import ban on tyre products 
to India for a period of six months as stated in notification no. 12/2015 -2020 dated 12 June 2020 
regarding Changes in Tyre Import Policy. The implementation of this policy has hampered tyre 
exports to India, considering that t he choice of tyre products that can be exported is highly limited 
and even has the potential to eliminate market access for imported tyres considering the various 
types and sizes of tyres produced by India as one of the world's main producers. Although the re are 
no official provisions governing the restrictions on the import of tyres, importers are required to 
make separate statements via electronic mail regarding import restrictions for certain types and size 
categories which have de facto hampered the exp ort of tyre products from Indonesia.  
2.298.   In addition, Indonesia suspects that there is discriminatory treatment in implementing the 
said policy, where the policy is applied selectively by targeting certain Member states that have the 
potential to become compe titors and disrupt market access for domestic tyre products. We are 
further disappointed that India appears to have issued Automotive Vehicles Pneumatic Tyres for 
passenger car Vehicles as per IS 15633:2022 without first notifying it to this Committee. Thi s 
regulation requires manufacturers to adapt their products to fulfill the revisions of regulation. 
 
86 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 133. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 84 - 
 
  Meanwhile, manufacturing needs time to adjust to these regulations and the certification application 
process which must be approved by BIS. We ask India to notify this revision regulation to the 
Committee, allow a reasonable time for stakeholder comments, and to take those comments into 
consideration as it implements the measure. As stated in the provisions of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of 
the WTO TBT Agreement, In donesia is of the opinion that the application of the policy to imported 
tire products is inconsistent with the principle of non -discrimination and has the potential to 
unnecessarily impede international trade. Indonesia expects that India will further cla rify the 
situation, notify the WTO TBT Committee of any relevant regulations, and assess the application of 
these policies to ensure that it is in line with WTO rules.  
2.299.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada thanks Indonesia 
for raising this STC, and for the record, we wish to reiterate our concerns as highlighted in para. 
3.285 of the minutes of the June TBT Committee meeting ( G/TBT/M/90 ). At the June meeting, India 
noted in its response that it was reviewing the comments made b y Canada. Can India provide today 
responses to the questions and issues raised by Canada?  
2.300.   In response, the representative of India provided the following statement. We refer to our 
statement made in the previous Committee meetings on this issue. We believe  that we have already 
responded to substantive points raised today. Additionally, our capital is reviewing the issues raised 
in the June meeting. We also remain open to discuss this issue bilaterally.  
2.1.4.31   China - Regulations for the Supervision and Administrat ion of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of the State Council), G/TBT/N/CHN/1022 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1023 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1024 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1025 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1026 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1029 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1313  (ID 42887) 
2.301.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. The Republic 
of Korea would like to express our pleasure in continuing cooperation between the regulatory 
authoriti es of China and Korea. We also recognize China's goal and purpose of strengthening overall 
supervision while encouraging innovation and development in the medical device industry, which 
China outlined at the previous Committee meeting. Considering the purp ose of China's laws and 
regulations, we believe that the inclusion of "internationally accredited testing laboratories" in 
"qualified testing laboratories" will lead to expedited supply of internationally safe and high -quality 
medical devices to the Chines e market as those laboratories are equipped with proper resources in 
accordance with relevant international standards and regulations, further contributing to innovation 
in the Chinese medical device industry and improvement of public health. Therefore, Ko rea reiterates 
the request to include 'internationally accredited testing laboratories' in "qualified testing 
laboratories" specified in Article 14 of the Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of 
Medical Devices (No. 739) in China.  
2.302.   In response , the representative of China  provided the following statement. Since the release 
and implementation of the new Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
in 2021, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has revised a number of supporting 
regulations and documents such as the Measures for the Registration and Filing of Medical Devices, 
the Measures for the Registration and filing of in vitro diagnostic Reagents, the Measures for the 
Supervision and Administration of Med ical Device Production, and the Measures for the Supervision 
and Administration of Medical Device Management, so as to further improve the medical device 
supervision and regulation system. Regulations and methods scientifically set clinical evaluation 
requirements, simplify the review and approval process, and further encourage innovative and high -
quality development of the industry. After the issuance of the regulations, NMPA actively carried out 
publicity, provided policy interpretation through government  websites and other platforms, and 
organized relevant training, such as training for imported medical device registrants. At the same 
time, the registrant system is implemented, the main responsibility of enterprises is strengthened, 
and the whole process of supervision is strengthened. In the next step, China will continue to pay 
attention to the implementation of the Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Medical 
Devices, listen to the opinions and suggestions of the industry, including the registrants of imported 
medical devices, and improve the relevant supporting measures.  
 
87 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 428. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 85 - 
 
  2.1.4.32   Viet Nam - Cybersecurity Measures (ID 54488) 
2.303.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan continues to request 
that the security assurance obligat ions for devices and systems stipulated by the Cybersecurity Law 
and Decree No.53/2022/ND -CP (hereinafter "Decree 53") be implemented in compliance with the 
TBT Agreement. At the previous meeting, Viet Nam mentioned that subsidiaries established by 
foreign  companies need to store data and establish branches or representative offices in Viet Nam 
only if the services provided by the companies are used to commit acts that violate the Law on 
Cybersecurity and they have refused or failed to comply with an order from the Department of 
Cybersecurity and Counter High -Tech Crime of the Ministry of Public Security of Viet Nam. However, 
as of the moment, Japan is unable to confirm that the above exemption is stipulated in Article 25 of 
the Degree related to the Cyberse curity Law and Article 26 of Decree 53, which respectively stipulate 
obligations to store data and establish branches in Viet Nam. Japan kindly requests Viet Nam to 
provide explanation for the articles which provide the exemption. In addition, even if the exemption 
is stipulated in any articles, Japan understands that the Cybersecurity Law and Decree 53 impose 
the obligation on domestic enterprises to store data in Viet Nam. If the domestic enterprises include 
foreign enterprises' subsidiaries established i n Viet Nam under Vietnamese laws, such subsidiaries 
would have the obligation to store data in Viet Nam, even though their parent enterprises are foreign 
enterprises. In general, foreign enterprises collect and manage data in an integrated manner outside 
Viet Nam. These foreign enterprises are more likely to incur burdens such as additional investment 
costs and to be placed in de facto unfavourable competitive conditions compared to domestic 
enterprises that collect and manage data in Viet Nam. As the conce rns Japan has raised remain 
unsolved, Japan would like to request feedback from the competent authority.  
2.304.   In response, the representative of Viet Nam  provided the following statement. Viet Nam 
appreciates the continued interest of Japan in Viet Nam's cybers ecurity measures. All the comments 
are acknowledged however the official response has not yet been finalized. Viet Nam would like to 
propose Japan to allow more time for us to discuss internally and to provide further feedback in the 
next TBT Committee.  
2.1.4.33   China - Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation and Regulation for 
Notification of Non -special Cosmetics, G/TBT/N/CHN/1310 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1311 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1331 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1453 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1454 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1459 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1460 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1515 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1524 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1525 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1526 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1527 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1539 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1615 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1626 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1673 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1674 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1682  
(ID 57689) 
2.305.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
maintains that it has serious concerns with CSAR and the cons istency of some of its implementing 
measures with certain WTO obligations, including the treatment of imports; overly burdensome and 
disproportionate information requirements; lack of procedures to ensure the protection of 
confidential and proprietary info rmation; duplicative in -country testing; and continued challenges 
with transparency in the development and implementation of the CSAR measures. However, China 
finalized several additional technical guidelines in late August. While we are in the process of 
reviewing these, could China please clarify the implementation timelines of these measures, in light 
of Announcement Number 34's intent to extend the transition period? We reiterate our request from 
the last two Committee meetings that China provide clarit y on NMPA's Announcement Number 13 
of 2023, issued in January on matters related to the notification and inspection of general cosmetics. 
Our understanding is that firms manufacturing in China will have the option of self -testing for general 
cosmetics, if they have a cosmetics production licence and they meet additional conditions. Could 
China please confirm? We also ask that China clarify whether importers will also be given the option 
to self -test. Further, if these requirements and procedures were not in cluded in previously notified 
measures, would China please notify them to the WTO TBT Committee? As we have long noted, US 
industry faces pressing challenges in trying to comply with China's often unrealistic implementation 
timelines for CSAR and its confl icting technical regulations – complicated further by the lag from 
prior Covid -19 shutdowns over the past three years, and the testing backlog at labs in China.  
 
88 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 544. 
89 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 576. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 86 - 
 
  2.306.   In prior meetings, we asked that China consider extending the national CSAR implementation 
deadlines for the notified measures contained in G/TBT/N/CHN/1459 , G/TBT/N/CHN/1515 , 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1526 , and G/TBT/N/CHN/1525 , including extending the deadlines that have already 
gone into effect. We appreciate that China' s 27 March announcement extended the deadlines for 
cosmetics ingredients filings, and we urge that China provide further flexibility in extensions across 
the other measures, given the aftereffects of the pandemic and the requirements for in -country 
testing . We also ask that China consider how it can rely upon international recognition schemes for 
conformity assessment to reduce the timelines for companies to comply. We understand that China 
may be drafting some provisions regarding overseas inspections. We again ask China the same 
question from the June meeting: is China able to provide a timeline on when these provisions will 
be notified for public comment? US companies remain eager for a means to engage with NMPA on 
questions arising from CSAR implementati on, including regarding the new requirements and use of 
NMPA's new online platforms for product and ingredient filings. Does China have any plans for this? 
Finally, we refer to previous US statements for other unresolved issues and unanswered questions. 
We ask that China discontinue its practice of responding to requests for clarification by merely 
reiterating CSAR's requirements and instead acknowledge and resolve the specific, tangible concerns 
expressed by the United States and many other WTO Members.  
2.307.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. The Republic 
of Korea would like to reiterate previous concerns regarding the "Cosmetics Supervision and 
Administration Regulation", "Specifications for Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Eva luation", "Specifications 
for Registration and Filing of New Cosmetic Ingredients", "Administrative Measures on Cosmetic 
Labeling", and "Specifications for Cosmetic Registration and Filing". Korea recognizes the China's 
policy objective to strengthen and i mplement cosmetics -related regulations to ensure the quality 
and safety of Chinese cosmetics and protect consumer health. We also understand that balancing 
consumer safety with market access is difficult. Nevertheless, we are still concerned about the lack  
of harmonization with international practices in relation to China's "Cosmetics Supervision and 
Administration Regulation" and implementation of measures, and infringement of corporate 
intellectual property rights by requesting more detailed information t han necessary to carry out the 
purpose of cosmetics market management. Especially, China's regulation states that test reports 
required for cosmetic product registration must be issued by testing laboratories that have obtained 
the CMA (China Metrology Acc reditation) certificate. This is considered a technical barrier to 
international trade that requires unnecessary resources such as time and effort for the distributed 
cosmetics whose safety and quality have already been secured. Accordingly, Korea reiterat es the 
request that China adopts more flexible measures, such as recognition of the test reports issued by 
internationally accredited laboratories outside China.  
2.308.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan continues to express 
the following concerns about the "Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation" and its 
implementing of detailed regulations in China. Japan would like to request that China continue to 
address not only the matters in the statements in the meetings, but also all of the matters uploaded 
on the eAgenda. 1. Tests conducted for cosmetics test reports required by the "Cosmetics 
Registration Filing Information Management Regulations" must be conducted by testing laboratories 
that are located in China and that h ave obtained CMA (China Methodology Accreditation) certificate. 
Japan has received responses from China stating that it does not prohibit or restrict foreign 
laboratories from obtaining CMA based on the "Administrative Measures for the Accreditation of 
Inspection and Testing Institutions". However, Article 4, Article 14, etc. of aforementioned 
Administrative Measures explicitly stipulate that only testing laboratories within the territory of China 
can be qualified for CMA. Consequently, this does not meet J apan's request to accept the test results 
of foreign laboratories with testing capabilities equivalent to laboratories that have obtained CMA. 
As Japan has repeatedly stated, the location is essentially irrelevant to testing capability, therefore 
Japan wou ld like to continue to request that China treat foreign laboratories with capability 
equivalent to the laboratories located in China that have obtained CMA as equal and also accept test 
results of such foreign laboratories as being equally valid, regardles s of where they are located, in a 
manner consistent with Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (hereinafter 
referred to as the TBT Agreement).  
2.309.   2. Regarding the efficacy claim evaluation methods required by the "Specifications for 
Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation", China responded at the previous meeting that "Based on the 
principle of equivalence, the efficacy claim evaluation test method does not limit the selection of 
internationally recognized foreign regulations or technical sta ndards, such as the ISO or OECD." 
However, the test methods applied to the efficacy claim of special cosmetic products such as G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 87 - 
 
  sunscreens are limited only to the ones listed in the Safety and Technical Standards for Cosmetics. 
Similarly, China requires mic robiological, physical, chemical and toxicological tests to be conducted 
in accordance with the test methods specified in the Chinese national standards and relevant 
regulations, and in the case of using a test method which is not specified in the national  standards 
and the regulations, China additionally imposes the verification of equivalence with the test methods 
specified in the national standards and regulations, and storing the test results in preparation for 
inspections. Japan would like to request t hat China treat internationally accepted methods such as 
those from the ISO or OECD as equal to the methods stipulated in China's national standards or 
relevant regulations. If they are not regarded as equivalent test methods, Japan would like to ask 
for China's clarification as to why they are not treated as acceptable.  
2.310.   3. Regarding the efficacy claim evaluation methods required by the "Specifications for 
Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation", Japan considers that the following points, in particular, are 
more stringent and restrictive than necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing the scientific validity 
and reliability of efficacy claim evaluation and protection of consumer legal interests. Japan reiterates 
its request for the implementation of a flexible f ramework considering internationally recognized 
practice. ・"Attachment 1, Requirements of Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation Item" specifies four 
types of evidence. It finely stipulates which evidence can be used for each efficacy claim. According 
to the i nternationally recognized practice, the types of evidence for each efficacy claim are 
determined individually by cosmetics registrants and filers based on the specific wording of claims 
and scientifically valid testing method for each one, as the types of evidence depend on the specific 
wording of claims. ・Applying the "Guiding Principles of Equivalent Evaluation" stipulated in the 
"Specifications for Cosmetic Efficacy Claim Evaluation" to skincare products, hair -care products, etc. 
is not allowed. Also, ev en in the case of makeup products, the quotation of "common efficacy claim" 
evaluation test data is only allowed in exceptional circumstances such as cases where only colorants 
differ in the formula of make -up series with multiple colors of the same regist rants or filers. 
Therefore, in all cases, even minor changes to formulations necessary to comply with regulations, 
etc., require retesting. This creates heavy burdens for cosmetics registrants and filers. Japan would 
like to request that China consider exp anding the scope of the "Guiding Principles of Equivalent 
Evaluation," based on international trends and stakeholder opinions. ・Regarding the evaluation test 
for freckle -removing/whitening products, Japan would like to request that China answer with a clea r 
reason why the "Read -Across" approach, which is commonly used and allows the evaluation test to 
be omitted under certain conditions, as was proposed in Article 16 (freckle -removing/whitening 
effect cross -reference) of the "Specifications for Cosmetic Eff icacy Claim Evaluation (Draft for 
Comments)" announced in September of 2020, was removed in the final regulation.  
2.311.   4. The "Provisions for the Supervision and Administration of Toothpaste" announced in March 
2023 stipulate that the efficacy evaluation of to othpaste "conforms to laws, regulations, mandatory 
national standards, technical norms and relevant requirements for quality safety and efficacy 
evaluation regulated by the National Medical Products Administration". Particularly, human efficacy 
tests are r equired for anticavity, control of dental plaque, anti -dentin hypersensitivity and reduction 
of gum problems. This necessitates retesting of many products, including even ones that have been 
approved to be effective overseas without human efficacy tests. A lso, as with cosmetics, human 
efficacy tests relevant to toothpaste must be conducted by testing laboratories that are located in 
China, and there are only a few such laboratories eligible for the qualification requirements within 
China, such as schools of  dentistry. Given these circumstances, we are concerned that retesting will 
take a long time and affect many toothpaste products currently on the market. Japan would like to 
request a flexible framework of using results from in vitro tests using oral -derived bacteria, cells, 
and tissues and open literature, as international practices adopted to confirm efficacy. In relation to 
this, the "Announcement on Matters Relating to the Implementation of Toothpaste Regulation and 
Simplification of Filing Requirements  for Listed Toothpastes (announcement No.124, 2023)" 
published in September 2023 stipulates that submission of evidence of efficacy will be required for 
products to be on the market from 1 December 2023, but the final version of the "Standards of 
Informati on File for Toothpaste Notification" has not been published as of October 2023. Considering 
the time for preparation, it is obviously impossible to comply with this requirement. To ensure that 
the measures are consistent with Articles 5.8 and 5.9 of the TB T Agreement, Japan would like to 
request that China provide an adequate grace period of at least one year after promulgation of all 
relevant regulations and guidelines in a consistent manner.  
2.312.   5. According to the "Measures for Further Optimizing Cosmetic I ngredient Safety Information 
Administration (announcement No.34, 2023)", for products that have been registered (licensed) or 
filed by 31 December 2023, the Cosmetic Ingredients Safety Information (except for high -risk G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 88 - 
 
  ingredients) should be kept by the re gistrant/filer for inspections. However, for products to be 
applied for registration or filed on or after 1 January 2024, the submission of the Cosmetic 
Ingredients Safety Information will still be required for all ingredients. The safety assessment report  
for products including the safety information of the ingredients and final products is required at the 
time of product registration or filing, and it is a duplicate requirement to separately submit the 
Cosmetic Ingredients Safety Information. Therefore, J apan would like to request that the 
registrant/filer keep the Cosmetic Ingredients Safety Information for all ingredients for inspections, 
regardless of whether the risk is high or low and the timing of application for registration or filing. 
This approach  is exactly the same for toothpaste ingredients stipulated by the "Standards of 
Information File for Toothpaste Notification", and Japan would like to request that the registrant/filer 
keep the Ingredients Safety Information for all ingredients for inspect ions, regardless of whether the 
risk is high or low and the timing of application for registration or filing. In addition, the "Guidelines 
for Submitting Information through the Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Information Submission 
Platform" announced on 4 Sep tember of 2023 and the related platform updates have made it 
impossible to obtain an ingredient registration code for mixed ingredients, but no official indication 
has been given as to how to cope with this, causing considerable confusion among cosmetic 
companies. Japan requests that China provide appropriate opportunities to explain the changes to 
relevant parties, including foreign cosmetic companies and industry associations, and secure 
sufficient transition time in the event of a fundamental change in i ts current administrative operation 
to be consistent with Article 5.9 of the TBT Agreement.  
2.313.   6. The Technical Guidelines for Cosmetic Safety Assessment stipulates that a full version of 
the report must be submitted for products registered and filed on or a fter 1 May 2024 instead of the 
current simplified version of the report. In the full version of the report, historical use experience of 
ingredients can no longer be used as evidence for safety, which was allowed in the simplified version. 
Therefore, for i ngredients without evaluation results from public organizations such as the CIR 
(Cosmetic Ingredient Review) or SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), it is necessary 
to gather safety data for ingredients and to submit some of those to the authori ties. Japan considers 
that it is more stringent than necessary for the purpose of safety that China requires the retesting 
of safety data for ingredients that have been used safely in the past. Japan would like to request the 
continued use of ingredients b ased on the evidence for historical use experience of ingredients. Also, 
the full report requires reporting of product stability tests and tests of compatibility with packaging 
materials, but guidelines for their operation have not yet been published, maki ng it impossible to 
have test results ready by 1 May 2024. Japan requests a flexible framework including the prompt 
announcement of the guidelines and the postponement of the enforcement date.  
2.314.   7. Japan recognizes that transition periods are set in all rel evant regulations, but disagrees 
that each transition period is long enough. Japan would like to strongly request that China provide 
an adequate grace period of at least one year after promulgation of all relevant regulations and 
guidelines in order to pre vent market turmoil and in order for cosmetics registrants and filers to 
adapt cosmetics to new requirements. 8. Regarding the "Interim Measures on the Administration of 
Overseas Inspections of Cosmetics," Japan would like to request that China clarify whi ch laws and 
regulations are used to assess conformity and specific purposes for conducting foreign inspections. 
Japan also asks that China ensure that the inspections will not be more trade restrictive than 
necessary to achieve the purpose of protecting hu man health. Moreover, information related to 
research and development is the most important confidential information for companies, but it is 
not the information that directly affects product safety assurance. Furthermore, inspections within 
China are limi ted to the production sector and this indicates that it is not necessary to conduct 
inspections of R&D sections. Therefore, Japan requests that China ensure that R&D sections that 
may possess confidential information be excluded from the subject of foreign  inspections. Japan also 
requests that confidential information not be disclosed to persons other than those necessary for the 
legitimate purpose of the inspection. 9. The sales certification that proves the products have been 
sold on the market in the cou ntry of production is only imposed on imported cosmetics. Japan 
requests that China treat imported products no less favorably than products that are produced in 
China, in other words, Japan requests that China abolish the obligation to acquire the sales 
certification for imported products. Regarding the "Administrative Measures on Cosmetic Labeling," 
which was promulgated on 3 June 2021, Japan would like to continue to express its following 
concerns.  
2.315.   10. In the TBT Committee meeting in November 2022, China  explained that the content of 
the Chinese labels regarding only product safety and efficacy must be consistent with the original 
labels. Japan would like to request that China clarify that the labels stipulated only by regulations of G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 89 - 
 
  the country of origin  do not have to be consistent with the content of the Chinese labels, including 
information regarding product safety and efficacy. 11. Article 7 requires the indication of 
"producers," "registrants or filers," and in the case of imported products, a "respo nsible person in 
China" on the product labels of cosmetics and toothpaste. The "Cosmetics Supervision and 
Administration Regulation" that China mentioned at the previous TBT Committee meetings, and the 
"Provisions for the Supervision and Administration of Toothpaste" clearly stipulates that registrants 
and filers are fully responsible for quality, safety and efficacy claims of products. In order to clarify 
responsibilities and avoid confusion among consumers, Japan would like to request that the labels 
of cosmetics and toothpaste should indicate only a single responsible person ("registrants or filers," 
and if needed, a "responsible person in China" as a contact person can be added), and that China 
delete content that requires the indication of producers. 12 . In the previous TBT Committee 
meetings, China explained that ingredients of 0.1% or less can be labeled as "other trace 
ingredients" in no particular order. However, with respect to the rules for labeling of all ingredients 
in cosmetics, there is an inte rnationally recognized listing practice that ingredients with a 
compounding amount of 1% or less are allowed to be listed in no particular order without a 
description. Japan would like to request that China assure that the rules for labelling follow the 
internationally recognized practice, including for toothpaste, so as not to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary for the purpose of showing consumers the safety and efficacy of products.  
2.316.   13. Japan understands the purpose of the sample retention system, and Japan is not against 
sample retention per se. However, "Public Notice Related Matters of Provisions for the Supervision 
and Administration of Cosmetics Production and Distribution" (No.140, 2021), requires that, 
regarding products imported to China fro m foreign registrants or filers, domestic responsible persons 
retain samples of each batch of cosmetics. Essentially, registrants or filers are responsible for the 
cosmetics in any case. Even in the case of imported cosmetics, Japan would like to request t hat 
China accept that samples do not always have to be retained in China if the testing system can be 
utilized immediately when problems occur. 14. With regard to the exemption of toxicological testing 
documents via certification documents related to the q uality management system and good 
manufacturing practice qualifications, Japan requests China's continued consideration for accepting 
certification documents related to quality management systems or good manufacturing practice 
qualifications issued by comp etent international organizations or industry associations which are 
authorized to issue certifications by government agencies in the country or region where the 
cosmetic manufacturer is located.  
2.317.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU 
welcomes that the Chinese authorities have extended the deadline for registration of cosmetics' raw 
materials and finished products until 1 January 2024, as well as the announced changes in terms of 
limited submiss ion requirements to specific ingredients. At the same time, the EU would like to refer 
to its earlier statements on this topic, as the EU's concerns outlined therein remain unchanged. We 
continue to support the statements by the delegations of the Republic  of Korea, Japan, the United 
States, Australia, and New Zealand. The European Union has confirmed that it supported the CSAR's 
objective of ensuring consumer safety. However, CSAR and its various implementing regulations 
remain more stringent than necessar y to ensure the safety and quality of imported cosmetics. In 
particular, this pertains to consumer safety and traceability of the ingredients used in cosmetics. 
CSAR's provisions diverge from international practice, as such an extensive level of informatio n is 
not required elsewhere in the world for notification and registration purposes. The obligation to 
transmit confidential information on new products and their ingredients to Chinese authorities 
continues to remain one of EU's most important concerns. A ccording to the EU, the mandatory 
disclosure of commercially sensitive information required in the notification and registration process, 
touching on intellectual property rights (IPR) of companies involved, goes far beyond what is 
required in line with in ternationally recognised practices.  
2.318.   Chinese measures therefore pose significant risks to companies' intellectual property and 
commercially sensitive information and are not proportionate to the objectives sought. The EU would 
like to recall that Chinese r equirements go far beyond the EU's Cosmetics Regulation – considered 
to be most stringent in the world. As regards efficacy testing, the multiple China -specific 
requirements will require significant re -testing of products for which the efficacy was already  
established in a third country. This also affects thousands of products that have already been placed 
on the market in China and for which the claim substantiation still needs to be completed. The EU is 
looking forward to a constructive dialogue with the Chinese authorities to find a satisfactory solution 
to ensure cosmetics safety without unnecessarily overburdening importers.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 90 - 
 
  2.319.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia remains 
concerned that measures under China's Cosmetic s Supervision and Administration Regulation 
(CSAR) and various implementing regulations, which entered into force on 1 May 2021, are more 
stringent and trade restrictive than necessary for low -risk cosmetics. These concerns relate to testing 
and registrati on requirements, government certification requirements and requirements to provide 
detailed information on production processes and other aspects of their intellectual property. 
Additionally, Australia remains concerned that China has maintained its requir ement for mandatory 
animal testing of children's cosmetics products, regardless of the level of risk presented by individual 
products. The Australian Government looks forward to working with China on CSAR implementation.  
2.320.   The representative of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand would 
like to reiterate our well -documented concerns from previous meetings in relation to China's 
regulatory system for cosmetics. We continue to urge China to consider additional measures to allow 
for: The exe mption of animal testing requirements through non -government regulatory authority -
issued GMP certification or other trade facilitative mechanisms for providing product assurances; 
Providing flexibility in respect of product testing requirements. In particu lar, we encourage China to 
accept test reports from accredited laboratories situated outside of China; and Further limitations 
on product disclosure requirements, particularly in relation to sensitive information – i.e. limited to 
that which is required to  assure product safety in China's domestic market, so as not to compromise 
intellectual property.  New Zealand looks forward to engaging further with China on its Cosmetics 
Supervision and Administration Regulations (CSAR) to address these issues.  
2.321.   In respon se, the representative of China  provided the following statement. Firstly, regarding 
the inspection required for cosmetics registration and notification, requiring the inspection for 
cosmetics registration and notification to be carried out by professional  institutions aims to protect 
consumers' rights and ensure the accuracy of the inspection results. Inspection institutions shall 
obtain the certification of inspection and testing qualification (CMA) in the field of cosmetics. 
However, China does not prohi bit foreign inspection institutions from getting the certification, and 
China's Administrative Measures for the Accreditation of Inspection and Testing Institutions do not 
restrict foreign inspection institutions from getting such certificates either. Seco ndly, regarding the 
evaluation of cosmetic efficacy claims. The formulation of the specification for the Evaluation of 
Cosmetic Efficacy Claims is to further ensure the scientificity, accuracy and reliability of the 
evaluation of cosmetic efficacy claims, and safeguard the rights and interests of consumers. Based 
on the principle of equivalence, the efficacy claim evaluation test method does not limit the selection 
of internationally recognized foreign regulations or technical standards, such as OECD or ISO .  
2.322.   Thirdly, regarding the cosmetics labeling -related issues. The information of cosmetics 
manufacturers includes the relevant information of the manufacturers and their locations, and etc, 
which is an important measure to protect consumers' rights. When ma rking enterprise information, 
the corresponding guide language should be used for marking, and there is no situation that will 
confuse consumers. It stipulates that ingredients with weight percentage not exceeding 0.1% (w/w) 
should be labelled with "other trace ingredients" as indicating words. The measure does not require 
a descending order of ingredient content or any other specific order. Lastly, regarding the protection 
of trade secrets and intellectual property rights, the procedures and data requireme nts for the 
registration and notification of cosmetics and new raw materials are detailed and clear in relevant 
regulation papers. Requiring registrants to submit safety -related materials is also a common practice 
aiming for the safety review of health -related products in various countries. It is exactly for the 
purpose of protecting the intellectual property rights and trade secrets of enterprises that in the 
process of formulating relevant technical documents, the evaluation data required of cosmetic 
efficacy claims only include the summary of the supporting material of the efficacy claims rather 
than the full text. The required technical materials of new raw materials only cover the basic aspects, 
such as the names, registration number, source, compositio n, physical and chemical properties, 
purpose of use, scope of use, safe amount of use, precautions, storage conditions and best before 
period, rather than the complete information. The authorities and administrative staff will strictly 
protect trade secret s in handling cosmetics registration, as prescribed by all relevant laws and 
regulations.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 91 - 
 
  2.1.4.34   Qatar - Ministry of Public Health Circular regarding shelf life for cheese 
(ID 60290) 
2.323.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to refer again to the Qatar's Ministry of Public Health Circular of 30 May 2019 
establishing new import requirements for ultra -heat treatment (UHT) milk and white cheese that 
entered into for ce already in 2019 and followed later by additional Circulars issued by Qatar on this 
issue. These trade restrictive measures are still kept in place to date. One of the main EU concerns 
as regards these import conditions is the short shelf -life period imp osed for several dairy products, 
including milk, cheese and butter, which do not seem to be based on science nor on international 
standards. In practice, it is impossible for EU exporters to continue shipping certain dairy products 
to Qatar under these con ditions. At the same time, local dairy producers in Qatar are favoured as 
they are not affected by the long transport time that foreign exporters need for shipping their dairy 
products to the country, and thus can comply with shorter shelf -life periods. Th e European Union 
would like to refer to constructive mutual exchanges on this important concern, however, despite 
the continued positive dialogue, the import measures are still in place. During our dialogue on this 
matter, Qatar signalled to be working on a solution to be offered in near future. The EU is looking 
forward to Qatar solving this issue at short term and we stand ready to continue working 
constructively with Qatar.  
2.324.   The representative of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand continues 
to support the EU's interventions and requests the science evidence behind the assessment that 
resulted in such restrictive shelf -life requirements. New Zealand remains strongly of the view that 
Qatar's shelf -life requirements for imported cheese  and other dairy commodities are trade 
restrictive, not based on science, and not in line with Codex standards. New Zealand continues to 
request that Qatar use internationally recognized standards such as Codex for the setting of shelf -life 
requirements.  
2.325.   In response, the representative of Qatar  provided the following statement. Qatar has taken 
note once again of the continued concern of the European Union, New Zealand, and the United 
States regarding Qatar's Ministry of Public health circular on quality sta ndards for certain dairy 
products and more specifically shelf -life periods for several dairy products, including milk, cheese 
and butter, and thanks them for their interest in this matter. As it has already been said, the relevant 
measures apply equally to  domestic and imported products and are therefore non -discriminatory in 
nature. These measures do not have a significant effect on trade, and product -specific requirements 
applied in the State of Qatar do not prevent the importation and sale of any product s that meet 
quality standards. That said, Qatar has held very constructive discussions on this matter with the 
European Union and is ready to explore constructive ideas on how we can enhance our trade 
relations. We remain available to continue our construc tive discussion with the interested Members 
to provide additional explanation where necessary.   
2.1.4.35   India - Air Conditioner and its related Parts (Quality Control) Order, 2019, 
G/TBT/N/IND/74 , G/TBT/N/IND/110  (ID 59891) 
2.326.   The representative of China  provided the following statement. China appreciates India's 
previous response. However, a significant backlog of factory inspections that cannot be completed 
in time and the need to ship samples back to India for testing make our industry difficult to obt ain 
BIS certification. China would like to indicate that the COVID -19 prevention and control measures 
have been adjusted. We once again urge India to improve the efficiency of factory inspections and 
carry out inspections on Chinese manufacturers as soon a s possible. China suggests that India could 
enhance the transparency of information on factory inspection and timely release information such 
as factory inspection schedule, facilitating enterprises' arrangements of production.  
2.327.   In response, the representat ive of India provided the following statement. We have already 
provided responses to all the questions raised by China in the previous Committee meeting. Since 
no new questions have been raised, we request the delegation of China to refer to our past 
respo nses. We remain open to discuss this issue bilaterally.  
 
90 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 602. 
91 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 598. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 92 - 
 
  2.1.4.36   China - Draft Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Producers of 
Imported Foods, G/TBT/N/CHN/1522  (ID 61192) 
2.328.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. A ustralia respects the right 
of WTO Members to address the safety and quality of imported food products in accordance with the 
TBT Agreement and without unnecessarily restricting trade. Australia acknowledges the difficulties 
experienced by China in the imp lementation of CIFER as part of its roll out of Regulation on 
Registration and Administration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Food (Decree 248). Australia 
appreciates the continued cooperation of officials from the General Administration of Customs C hina 
(GACC) to work through the many system issues experienced in the CIFER system. We remain willing 
to engage with China to minimise trade disruptions but are still concerned at the 
resource  and-labour -intensive costs borne by exporters and exporting cou ntry competent authorities 
to comply with the CIFER registration process. This burden is exacerbated by the number of technical 
issues, delays and lack of clarity experienced within the CIFER system. Australia encourages China 
to improve engagement with tr ading partners on CIFER through the provision of: regularly updated 
and detailed guidance material ; a pathway to recognition of trading partner systems ; guarantee of 
continuity of trade to registered establishments when IT system issues in the CIFER system  are not 
resolved. Australia reminds China that its regulations must not discriminate against imported goods. 
Delays in processing registration renewals, lifting suspensions and approving new applications from 
overseas food producers, only lead to imported  foods being treated less favourably than China's 
domestic product.  
2.329.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
remains deeply concerned with this measure, published as Decree 248 in April 2021, and 
implement ed in January 2022. We are taking the floor for the 12th and likely final time in this 
Committee to share our concerns with this measure and the companion measure, Decree 249. We 
are extremely disappointed that China finalized and implemented this measure as proposed, despite 
extensive efforts at constructive engagement by the United States and the international community, 
including in TBT, SPS, and CTG meetings, in bilateral engagements, and through joint letters from 
nine WTO Members. China did not meet t he requests of trading partners to meaningfully engage in 
the explanation of the new requirements, provide a scientific or technical justification, or publish 
changes that reduce unnecessary trade burdens for the billions of dollars' worth of safe food exp orted 
to China under these requirements. Despite being in effect for nearly two years, Decree 248 
continues to create new challenges for global food producers and competent authorities as China 
regularly alters the scope of the measure without notification  of the changes, implements new 
requirements without advance notice, and applies inconsistent criteria for review of applications for 
registration. We ask once more that China meet its international and bilateral obligations, and we 
maintain our commitment  to seek solutions to these outstanding concerns and welcome meaningful 
dialogue with China to reduce barriers to trade in safe food products. We acknowledge that the 
discussion in this Committee has led China to implement this measure in a manner that is less 
restrictive than the measure itself appears to require, including by appearing to informally waive 
certain documentation requirements that would have imposed an immense burden on the US 
competent authority. We maintain our commitment to support and co llaborate with WTO Members 
who are also requested changes and are harmed by this measure We will continue to work together 
to monitor implementation.  
2.330.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan, like other Members, 
would like to rai se its concerns again regarding the implementation of Decree 248 by China 
concerning administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported food. 
Japan appreciates China's flexibility to address the difficulties Japanese manufacture rs faced in 
renewal of registrations. Having said so, Japan is still concerned that the procedures lack 
predictability and transparency and are more trade -restrictive than necessary. Japan requests China 
to improve the operation of the CIFER system, and to  ensure that the procedures related to the 
Decree 248 are undertaken and completed without undue delay and in a transparent manner. Japan 
would also like to ask China the following: To establish a standard processing period for applications 
made through th e CIFER system (i.e., a standard timeline to be followed from application through 
registration), and make that processing period known to the Members and foreign manufacturers. 
To give sufficient explanation for the reasons when application is rejected thr ough the CIFER system, 
and ensure its consistency. To notify the Members promptly of any changes in the operation of the 
regulations or the CIFER system, including changes to product codes (HS CIQ) used in the system, 
 
92 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 611. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 93 - 
 
  which will or might affect exports. Sh ould any changes occur, we also ask that the GACC provide a 
reasonable transitional period. To correct any defects in the CIFER system as soon as possible, 
including: (a) the current, considerable delays in the registration process; (b) its inability to ac cept 
letters of proxy; and (c) the fact that some of the product codes (HS CIQ) are missing from the list 
shown on the system. To proceed in a timely manner with review of additional information submitted 
by registered manufacturers. Even now there are man ufacturers who have not received any 
response from the GACC, that is 145 out of 899 manufacturers for products designated in Article 7 
of Decree 248. To respond to unanswered questions within a reasonable time, Japan would like to 
communicate closely with China to address our concerns in a cooperative  manner.  
2.331.   The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
provided the following statement. As we have already expressed in previous meetings, we remain 
deeply concerned about these measures, as uncertainties and a lack of transparency persist even 
after they have been implemented for more than one and a half years. First, a lack of sufficient 
information remains a major obstacle, particularly for those facilities that mus t register directly with 
the General Administration of Customs of China (GACC). While China has indicated that technical 
guidance, regulatory interpretations, and supporting documentation have already been provided, we 
would urge that these materials be re gularly updated and placed on a publicly available website so 
that they can be accessed by overseas facilities. Second, the standard or anticipated processing time 
for the review and approval procedures has yet to be disclosed, little is known about the in dividual 
stages of the application process, and our facilities have reported that their applications have been 
rejected by the GACC without explanation. We would therefore once again urge the GACC to comply 
with its obligations under Articles 5.2.2 and 5.2 .8 of the TBT Agreement so as to ensure that its 
review and approval procedures are efficient and transparent. Ever since China notified the WTO of 
its intent to pass these measures in 2020, we have repeatedly expressed concern and sought 
clarification reg arding their implementation through bilateral channels as well as the TBT Committee, 
yet these concerns have yet to be adequately addressed. We look forward to China's response.  
2.332.   The representative of the Philippines  provided the following statement. The Ph ilippines 
acknowledges China's strong support in addressing the issues raised by concerned Members. We 
appreciate the enhancements implemented in the CIFER system facilitating better registration 
processes within the GACC. Nevertheless, we align with the c oncerns expressed by Australia, the 
United States, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and Korea. The core of the issue lies in the registration of 
traders and consolidators with the GACC which remains problematic. This is because Decree 248 
mandates the registration o f food manufacturers, processors, and storage facilities but fails to 
include traders and consolidators. Furthermore, the Philippines notes that the GACC has not 
established a clear timeline for the CIFER system applications processing.  
2.333.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. The Republic 
of Korea echoes the concerns raised by Australia, the United States, Japan, and Chinese Taipei under 
this STC. Korea respects China's efforts to ensure the safety of its consumers from  risks caused by 
food products, and appreciates its continued cooperation through bilateral channels such as Korea 
and China Food Safety Cooperation Commission. Unfortunately, Korea notes that the registration 
process still requires up to two months to rea ch completion despite applicants conforming to the 
GACC requirements when applying for product category registration. Moreover, the lack of an 
explanation when registration is rejected poses challenges for the exporting manufacturers. 
Therefore, we would l ike to ask China to provide a clear explanation of the reasons behind 
registration rejections. Furthermore, we acknowledge that the practice of registration subjecting 
product categories imposes a trade burden by repeatedly demanding information from alrea dy 
validated manufacturing facilities. Regarding this, we would like to ask China to reconsider the 
subject of registration, changing the focus towards manufacturing facilities, thereby facilitating the 
process. As the new measures would significantly affe ct bilateral trade, Korea would like to ask China 
to respond to our statement.  
2.334.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada appreciates the 
efforts made by Chinese authorities to facilitate the registration and renewal process of 
establishments in the CIFER system. However, greater consistency in the registration and renewal 
process as well as efforts to reduce administrative burden would ensure the CIFER system does not 
cause delays. Canada also reiterates its request that China ap propriately consider the relative risk 
of different products. China could reduce the administrative burden of the registration process by 
expanding the scope of "low risk" products for which foreign establishments may submit applications 
directly in the CI FER system without requiring approval by foreign competent authorities.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 94 - 
 
  2.335.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The EU would 
like to support concerns raised about the implementation of Decree 248 of the General 
Administra tion of Customs of the People's Republic of China (GACC). Almost two years after its entry 
into force, the EU considers that the whole implementation process of Decree 248 is still 
burdensome, both for authorities and operators, including issues with the r egistration process, 
notably the electronic submission of documents through the CIFER system, which is cumbersome 
and time consuming, be it to apply for new registrations, or to amend or correct existing ones. The 
EU requests that China guarantees continui ty of trade while Decree 248 is being implemented. In 
this context, new requirements should not be implemented without advance notice and China should 
regularly publish updated guidance on Decree 248 implementation.  
2.336.   In response, the representative of China  provided the following statement. In order to 
effectively implement the Food Safety Law and its implementation Regulations, the GACC has revised 
the Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods (Decree 
248), which c ame into force on 1 January 2022. We have notified the measure to the WTO and 
adopted reasonable comments. The transitional period is in line with the requirements of the 
TBT/SPS Agreement. With the strong cooperation of the food safety authorities of all members, more 
than 80,000 overseas manufacturers from 165 economies have been registered in China. Among 
them, there are 6,434 US companies registered in China, 6,030 from Japan, 2,999 from South Korea, 
2,193 from Australia, 1,162 from Canada and 502 from the Philippines. In 2022, in the first year of 
the implementation of CIFER system, China imported RMB 1.39 trillion Yuan of food, an increase of 
10.4%. It also proves the effectiveness of import registration in ensuring the safety of imported food 
and prom oting food trade to China. To support the implementation of the regulations, the GACC had 
successively issued the interpretation of the regulations, the guidelines, and supporting documents 
and forms for registration application, and launched the registrat ion information system for overseas 
enterprises.  
2.337.   In order to better understand the regulation by the competent authorities and enterprises 
of members, the GACC has held regulatory briefings and training with more than 100 Members. In 
addition, GACC published a video demonstration of the CIFER system oper ation on their official 
website. We need to emphasize that the establishment of the CIFER system aims to facilitate overall 
management, optimize services, simplify trade procedures, and promote the healthy development 
of trade. China organized an informati on session on the margin of the 91st TBT Committee in June 
2023. At the information session, China shared the implementation information about GACC Decree 
248, made an introduction to the operation and optimization of the registration system, and gave 
an explanation of the common questions on the registration procedures received from the Members. 
If Members are still confused about the regulations and the registration system, they are welcome 
to raise questions at any time, and GACC will respond in a timely  manner and provide technical 
support.  
2.1.4.37   Colombia - Food Prioritized for its Sodium Content, Certification Requirements, 
G/TBT/N/COL/238 , G/TBT/N/COL/238/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/COL/246  (ID 60993) 
2.338.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes to 
reiterate its trade concern in support of a systemic defence of the p rinciples of the TBT Agreement 
relating to the adoption of measures based on scientific evidence and the harmonization of rules 
through the use of regulations issued by international reference organizations such as the Codex 
Alimentarius. The Codex Aliment arius has no standards that may act as a basis for setting 
percentages for maximum sodium, fat or sugar content (as is the case with the list of foods prioritized 
by Colombia and the maximum sodium percentages). As a result, there are different regulatory 
systems for international trade in processed foods, which makes sectors less competitive and 
restricts trade more than necessary. As with other trade concerns raised at this meeting, Costa Rica 
remains open to receiving further information on the internati onal reference organization standards 
used by the Colombian authorities to prepare this regulation.  
2.339.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. Paraguay recognizes and 
supports the right of Colombia to protect the health of its populat ion by limiting the sodium content 
of some foods as part of efforts to protect against chronic non -communicable diseases. However, 
Paraguay is concerned that the procedure is more restrictive than is necessary to achieve the 
legitimate objective pursued by  Colombia with this measure. We therefore request that Paraguay's 
 
93 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 609. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 95 - 
 
  support for this concern be put on record and that its statement from the March meeting be recorded 
in the minutes in its entirety.  
2.340.   Statement from March 2023 meeting, in full.94 We thank Cos ta Rica for the inclusion of this 
trade concern on the agenda and we request that Paraguay's support be recorded.  Paraguay 
recognizes and supports the right of Colombia to protect the health of its population by limiting the 
sodium content of some foods as  part of efforts to protect against chronic non -communicable 
diseases. However, Paraguay is concerned that the procedure is more restrictive than necessary to 
achieve the legitimate objective pursued by Colombia with this measure. In particular, it is conc erned 
that the first party declaration may no longer be used, given the accreditation of an entity to certify 
compliance and the expiry of the period for using this type of certification (two years from the 
accreditation of the certifying entity).  
2.341.   The repr esentative of Guatemala  provided the following statement. Guatemala wishes to 
thank Costa Rica for including this item on the agenda. We recognize the Colombian Government's 
legitimate objective of safeguarding the population's health, and the efforts made  to lower total 
sodium intake in Colombia in order to reduce hypertension and other related diseases. We are aware 
that Colombia's Ministry of Health carried out a simple regulatory impact analysis for the revision of 
Resolution No. 2013 of 2020, which est ablishes the Technical Regulation defining the maximum 
sodium content for the food prioritized in the framework of the National Strategy for the Reduction 
of Sodium Consumption. We look forward to the outcomes of the public consultation and would be 
gratef ul to the Government of Colombia if consideration were given to the comments made, and 
hope that updated information can be provided.  
2.342.   In response, the representative of Colombia  provided the following statement. First, I would 
like to express our gratitude  for the comments made on previous occasions and at this meeting. 
Second, I would like to highlight the importance of our work with various countries to address certain 
aspects of the measure, such as permitted certification schemes and the acceptance of f irst-party 
declarations, among other matters. As a result, our Ministry of Health and Social Protection has 
determined that it is possible to amend Resolution No.  2013 of 2020, and is doing so in two respects: 
Revising sodium levels for some products; Stre amlining the conformity assessment procedure for 
manufacturers, which will allow for the submission of first -party declarations. To conclude, we 
reiterate our willingness to continue technical discussions to facilitate enforcement of the measure 
and put an  end to this trade concern.  
2.1.4.38   Mexico - Draft Amendment to Mexican Official Standard NOM -051-SCFI/SSA1 -
2010: General specifications for the labelling of pre -packed food and non -alcoholic 
beverages, G/TBT/N/MEX/178/Add.9  (ID 60895) 
2.343.   The repre sentative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica would like to 
reiterate this concern and emphasize the importance of harmonizing food labelling schemes, in 
particular front -of-pack nutritional labelling, on the basis of Codex Alimentar ius standards 
(Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling CXG 2 -1985, Annex 2, adopted in 2021). In this regard, we invite 
Mexico to use the Codex guidance on the subject as a reference to ensure that regulations are 
consistent with the international consensus and do not create unnecessary restrictions on trade. 
Costa Rica, as it has done for similar concerns raised at previous meetings of the Committee, wishes 
to remind other Members present of the importance of the work undertaken within the framework 
of the Codex  Alimentarius and of the need for any food labelling measures adopted to be based on 
scientific evidence and on Codex Standards, in accordance with the provisions of the TBT Agreement.  
2.344.   In response, the representative of Mexico  provided the following statem ent. The Government 
of Mexico recognizes the importance of using international standards as a starting point for 
developing technical regulations. However, at the time NOM -051 (and the amendment thereto) on 
the labelling of pre -packed food and non -alcoholi c beverages was being drafted, there were no 
applicable international standards or guidelines to guide the implementation of front -of-pack 
labelling. Similarly, the Mexican delegation would like to state that the adoption, amendment or 
annulment of technic al regulations in Mexico is governed by the standardization process established 
under the Law on Quality Infrastructure and is in compliance with the procedures stipulated in that 
Law, which are consistent with Mexico's international commitments. However, to date, NOM -051 has 
 
94 G/TBT/M/89 , para. 2.106 -2.107.  
95 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 608. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 96 - 
 
  not been included in the National Quality Infrastructure Programme for 2024; therefore, no 
amendments are expected in the short term. The Mexican Government reiterates its commitment to 
fulfilling the international commitments under th e TBT Agreement and the free trade agreements to 
which it is party, and reiterates that NOM -051 fulfils the legitimate objectives of priority concern of 
protecting public health and the right to commercial and health information on food and non -alcoholic 
beverages, by providing for consumers to make an informed purchase.  
2.1.4.39   India - Order related to requirement of Non -GM cum GM free certificate 
accompanied with imported food consignment, G/TBT/N/IND/168  (ID 65196) 
2.345.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to refer to its previous statements on this matter and reiterate some of its concerns 
with regard to this measure voiced at previous TBT Committee meet ings. The additional costs that 
the issuance of these certificates carries for exporters are very high, particularly as there is a need 
for a certificate for each container in each consignment of fresh fruit and vegetables exported to 
India. This is even m ore important taking into consideration that the cost is entirely unnecessary 
since no fruits or vegetables in the EU can be genetically modified under EU legislation. India still 
did not provide justification on why it considers necessary to impose such a  burden on trading 
partners with a high prevalence of non -GM food on their domestic market and a robust regulatory 
regime governing the use of GMs. The EU would like to ask India to waive the requirement to attach 
the certificate for food items or alternat ively to consider a less burdensome approach to meeting the 
Order's stated objectives.  
2.346.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. This is the tenth 
TBT Committee meeting in which the United States has raised concerns regardi ng India's Order 
mandating "non -GM (genetically modified) origin and GM free certificates" for certain agricultural 
imports into India, notified on 2 September 2020, as G/TBT/N/IND/168 . The United States once 
again acknowledges India's right to regu late "GM" foods, as laid out in their Environment Protection 
Act (1986) and Rules 1989. However, the United States continues to insist that India provide the 
rationale for requiring a non -GM certificate on a per -consignment basis for each of the 24 crops 
named in the Order. In response to India's request that Members cite specific trade issues in 
connection with the Order, the United States resubmits for the record that US apples experienced 
immediate and significant trade disruption upon the entry into for ce of the Order in March 2021, 
which was only resolved by a US State issuing a non -GM certificate. Additional US products have 
been affected by the Order, and the United continues to face further market access issues with 
genetically engineered products, i n particular. Despite continuing to engage with India on this Order, 
we have been unable to make substantive progress to resolve these concerns. The United States 
requests that India immediately revoke this trade restrictive Order and engage in further dia logue 
with the United States to find mutually agreeable alternatives that do not unnecessarily impact trade.  
2.347.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan, like other Members, 
reiterates that the measure which requires 24 agricultural  products imported by India to be 
accompanied by a certificate stating that they are not of genetically modified origin and do not 
contain genetic modification, is not based on scientific principles or proper risk assessment, and is a 
measure which is more  trade -restrictive than necessary and could create unnecessary obstacles to 
agricultural trade between India and WTO members. In Japan, under domestic laws, the import, 
distribution, cultivation, and other general uses of genetically modified agricultural products for 
human consumption are subject to safety evaluations, and agricultural products that are not 
approved by the evaluation process could not be imported nor distributed domestically. If certain 
items are already under appropriate control in the or igin country, India's objectives can be addressed 
in a less trade -restrictive manner. Japan requests India to withdraw the requirement to the 
attachment of certificates for foods that are properly controlled in the origin country.  
2.348.   The representative of Canada provided the following statement. Once again, Canada wishes 
to reiterate its concern regarding India's August 2020 Order, which mandates that a non -genetically 
modified or GM free certificate accompany imported consignments of 24 imported food products . 
Our concerns are detailed in comments submitted through India's TBT Enquiry Point in October 
2020. We continue to wait for India's response. Canada views that India's Order unnecessarily 
restricts international trade, and disproportionately impacts the a bility of GM -food producing 
countries to export to India, and could jeopardize India's need for healthy and nutritious food 
 
96 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 651. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 97 - 
 
  products. While we understand India's commitment to ensuring the health and safety of its 
population, it still remains unclear to Ca nada how India's non -GM certification requirement will fulfil 
its intended objective given the lack of available scientific information and/or justification to support 
its implementation. We would like to emphasize again that foods derived from GM sources have a 
long history of safety and nutrition as compared to non -GM foods, and undergo rigorous risk 
assessment processes under robust regulatory frameworks managed by many different competent 
authorities worldwide.  
2.349.   We continue to call on India to share the  scientific and technical information on which it has 
based its approach to support a transparent, predictable, risk - and science -based trading 
environment – in line with India's WTO commitments. Canada once again reiterates its request that 
India immediat ely suspend the implementation of this measure and allow trade to continue without 
a GM -free certificate requirement. We urge India to consider alternate, less trade -restrictive 
approaches that would meet India's objectives. Canada remains available and wo uld welcome the 
opportunity to share its extensive experience regulating GM food safety while encouraging food 
innovation, and to pursue further discussions on this issue in a bilateral setting. Finally, Canada 
continues to reiterate its request for India to notify the non -GM Order to the SPS Committee given 
the Order's stated objective is "to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of articles of food imported 
into India."  
2.350.   The representative of Argentina  provided the following statement. We would like to thank  
the United States and the European Union for once again including this specific trade concern on the 
Committee's agenda and request that Argentina's support be put on record. With respect to India's 
measure, Argentina regrets having to once again reiterat e its concern and again stresses that the 
measure has no scientific explanation to support it. India has not responded to the concerns raised 
in a timely manner by Argentina, so our concern regarding this measure remains valid. We refer to 
statements made at previous meetings of this Committee.  
2.351.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. We extend our thanks to 
the United States and the European Union for raising this trade concern. We are especially concerned 
that this measure may crea te an unjustified assumption that GM  food products evaluated and 
authorized on the basis of sound regulatory processes are less safe than non -GM food products. GM 
products have undergone rigorous scientific safety assessments in accordance with internation al 
standards, guidelines and recommendations to ensure that they are considered as safe as their 
conventional counterparts. We request India to notify the Order to the SPS Committee, considering 
the objective being pursued, namely ensuring the safety and w holesomeness of imported foods, and 
to reconsider this policy, as it is not consistent with its WTO obligations.  
2.352.   The representative of Uruguay  provided the following statement. Uruguay wishes to thank 
the delegations of the United States and the EU for, on ce again, including this concern on the agenda. 
Uruguay recognizes India's right to take measures to guarantee food safety and the health of its 
population. However, there should be a logical connection between the proposed measure and the 
objective pursue d, and in this case, beyond the answers provided by India to date, there appears to 
be no technical justification for the implementation of the proposed certification measure, taking 
into account the cited legitimate objective of ensuring the safety and wh olesomeness of imported 
foods. In the light of this objective, we wish to reiterate that, in our opinion, this measure should be 
notified to the SPS Committee. We consider it opportune to recall, once again, the existing 
international consensus that geneti cally modified products, approved by exporting countries on the 
basis of Codex recommendations relating to risk assessment methodologies, are equivalent to their 
conventional counterparts. Furthermore, Uruguay would like to stress how important it is for 
Members to establish measures based on scientific principles, and, in particular, for these measures 
to be implemented with the objective of minimizing negative trade effects, in line with the SPS and 
TBT Agreements. Lastly, we wish to reiterate the questio ns posed by Uruguay following the March 
and April 2023 meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees and the Goods Council, on the relationship 
between the measure referred to in this specific trade concern and the measure notified by India to 
the TBT and SPS Com mittees on 5 January 2023 (as documents G/TBT/N/IND/240  and G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 98 - 
 
  G/SPS/N/IND/290 , respectively), regarding the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Genetically 
Modified Foods) Regulations, 2022.97  
2.353.   In response, the representative of India provided t he following statement. India thanks 
Member Countries interest in India's Non -GM cum GM free certificate requirement. The import of GM 
foods are not allowed in India (as per Environment Protection Act, 1986 and FSSAI Act, 2006). 
Therefore, to ensure that o nly Non -GM food crops are imported into India, FSSAI has notified the 
requirement of Non -GM certificate to be accompanied with imported food consignment, which is an 
assurance provided by the Competent Authority of exporting country that the food crops whi ch are 
not approved by GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) are not imported in India and 
importer has to provide the certificate as per the format notified by FSSAI. On similar lines, India 
has been issuing such certificates for its exports to ot her countries. Noting the restriction of GM 
foods in India, the tolerance limit for adventitious presence of GMOs at 1% is permissible in imported 
food crops and the same was notified vide FSSAI order dated 8 February 2021. Accordingly, import 
is permissib le if the adventitious presence of GM content is less than notified tolerance limit. Further, 
GEAC has so far not approved any of the crop varieties of Genetically Modified/Engineered origin 
listed on the Order mentioned above. The requirement of a Non -GM certificate for import of 24 food 
crops is an assurance required from Competent Authorities of exporting countries that the food crops 
exported to India are of Non -GM origin and GM -free. As on date, our several trade partners are 
already providing requisit e certificate and trade is going on smoothly. FSSAI is open to interact with 
trading partners for discussing the said matter in order to facilitate trade. However, with respect to 
specific query raised by the countries, India would like to state that: The TBT Agreement recognizes 
the right of a Party to adopt international standards as per the appropriateness or effectiveness for 
the Party. The precautionary measures have been taken by FSSAI since GM food is not allowed in 
India. Further, on similar lines, India also issues more than 7,000 GM free certificates yearly as per 
the requirement of the exporting countries.  
2.1.4.40   Argentina - Decree Implementing Law No. 27.642 on the Promotion of Healthy 
Eating, G/TBT/N/ARG/435 ; G/TBT/N/ARG/435/Add.1  (ID 77298) 
2.354.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes once 
again to express its concern regarding the Argentine regulation on the promotion of healthy eating, 
doing so in support of a systemic defence of the principles of the TBT Agreement relating to the 
adoption of measures based on scientific evidence and the harmonization of rules through the use 
of regulations issued by international reference organizations such as the Codex Alimentarius. Costa 
Rica is concerned by the lack of harmonization among the va rious food labelling standards and 
regulations, which has led to the proliferation of schemes with different content percentages 
requiring a warning, thereby creating unnecessary barriers to trade. Costa Rica wishes once again 
to stress the importance of h armonizing food labelling schemes, on the basis provided by the Codex 
Alimentarius, and encourages other Members to actively participate in the discussions on front -of-
pack labelling within this international reference organization. Costa Rica undertakes t o maintain an 
open dialogue between both countries' delegations to the WTO, with the aim of exchanging 
communications and information relating to the Argentine regulation.  
2.355.   In response, the representative of Argentina  provided the following statement. For t he 
record, our full response is available on eAgenda and is in line with our statements from previous 
sessions. We appreciate Costa Rica's interest in Law No. 27.642 on the promotion of healthy eating 
 
97 "In this connection, we would l ike to recall that the Order of 21 August 2020, establishing the 
certification requirement for the importation of consignments of any of the 24 crops specified in its Annex, 
indicates in point 2 that this requirement is adopted to ensure that only non -GM food crops are imported into 
India while regulations relating to products subject to genetic engineering or modification are developed in 
accordance with Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006. The draft standard notified on 5 
January 2023 refers in its recitals, inter alia , to Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, which is 
the same as that referred to in the Order of 21  August  2020. In this regard, in line with the bilateral 
discussions on the margins of this meeting, we wou ld like to request India to clarify the relationship between 
the two measures, if there is one, including whether or not the recently notified draft corresponds to the 
standard referred to in the Order of 21  August  2020. If so, does this mean that the cert ification requirement 
under the said Order will cease to apply once the draft standard notified on 5 January 2023, as it stands or 
modified, enters into force? If not, could India inform this Committee of the status of development of 
regulations concerning  products subject to genetic engineering or modification as provided for in Section 22 of 
the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006?"  
98 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 772. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 99 - 
 
  and we reiterate that it is consistent with the rules c ontained in the TBT Agreement. At previous 
meetings of this Committee, Argentina has provided detailed explanations of the development and 
implementation process for this Law. In recent years, essential population studies were published in 
Argentina that a llow for a closer characterization of the epidemiological situation relating to nutrition 
and food. This is characterized by ever -increasing consumption of ultra -processed products and an 
increase in malnutrition rates, especially through excess, in all so cial groups. The excess 
consumption of critical nutrients regulated by labelling is associated with increased cardiovascular 
and cerebrovascular diseases, obesity, diabetes, cancer and hypertension, among others, which are 
the cause of most deaths each yea r in Argentina. Furthermore, studies carried out in 10 countries, 
including Argentina, also concluded that the consumption of products containing excess critical 
nutrients according to the Pan American Health Organization/WHO definition (which has been 
adopted by the Law and its implementing regulations in Argentina) is associated with significant 
non-compliance with WHO recommendations on the intake of these nutrients. Lastly, we reiterate 
our readiness to continue engaging bilaterally with the delegation of Costa Rica.  
2.1.4.41   India - Footwear (Quality Control Order), 2020, G/TBT/N/IND/172  (ID 79799) 
2.356.   The representative of the United Kingdom  provided the following statement. The United 
Kingdom thanks India for our bilateral engagement on their Quality Control Orders for Footwear 
which sets out quality control requirements for footwear made from leather and other materials. 
Like India, the Uni ted Kingdom acknowledges the importance of implementing high standards for 
footwear to ensure consumer protection. However, we believe that the applicable international 
standards provide an adequate means of ensuring product quality and safety. The Quality  Control 
Orders in their current iteration seem to require manufacturers to manufacture to two different 
standards. The measures are being particularly burdensome to smaller manufacturers who may be 
unable to absorb the additional, unjustified costs. We be lieve that there are other, less trade 
restrictive options to ensure footwear is of a high quality and urge India to reconsider this measure. 
We again encourage India to continue their participation in the ISO/TC 216 Footwear and ISO/TC 
94 Foot Protection Committees and to recognize that conformity with ISO relevant standards would 
fulfil Indian quality control requirements. Whilst the United Kingdom thanks India for extending the 
implementation of some of these standards until 31 December 2023, there conti nues to considerable 
uncertainty around how manufacturers can meet the new requirements, including those 
implemented in July. We request that India provide clearly accessible, written, step -by-step guidance 
on all requirements initially notified under symb ol G/TBT/N/IND/172 , to enable manufacturers to 
meet the requirements. Until there is clarity and appropriate guidance issued on the processes 
required to meet India's Quality Control Orders for Footwear, including the costs associated with 
certifica tion, we request that India further delays the implementation of these standards. We would 
encourage India to allow for a period of at least six months in order to enable businesses to comply 
with the new requirements. The United Kingdom looks forward to c ontinuing conversations towards 
resolution with India on this matter.  
2.357.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
would like to support the statement provided by the United Kingdom. We understand that India 
notified its Footwear Quality Control Orders in G/TBT/N/IND/172  in 2020. Subsequently, in June 
2022, India rescinded both 2020 Footwear QCOs and published the "Footwear Made from Leather 
and Other Materials (Quality Control) Order, 2022" and the "Foo twear Made from all -Rubber and all 
Polymeric Material and its Components (Quality Control) Order, 2022," which have been in force 
since 1 July 2023. We would appreciate if India would notify an addendum to reflect the final measure 
entering into force, alo ng with any additional changes or amendments contained in the 2022 
Footwear QCOs to the WTO TBT Committee. We recognize the importance of ensuring consumer 
protection and addressing counterfeit goods. However, we are concerned that given the lengthy 
proces s in place to secure inspections as required by the QCOs, such requirements pose significant, 
time consuming, and costly burdens on manufacturers. It strikes us that there are less trade 
restrictive options available to address India's concerns, and we con tinue to encourage India to 
consider such alternatives.  
2.358.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union (EU) would like to support the United Kingdom and the United States. The EU recognizes the 
importance of h igh standards for footwear regarding product and chemical safety. However, 
standards must not become restrictive on companies that already apply high safety standards. The 
 
99 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 797. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 100 - 
 
  EU remains deeply concerned by the increasing number of Quality Control Orders (QCOs ) issued by 
India across many sectors. The EU would like to recall that the majority of QCOs introduced by India 
appear to have a protectionist orientation and consequently raise questions regarding their 
compliance with the WTO's TBT Agreement obligations . The EU is particularly concerned by the fact 
that QCOs usually prescribe India -specific standards where international standards already exist. In 
fact, while dealing with QCOs, the procedures involved pose a greater hurdle than complying with 
the technic al standards. The EU would like to remind India that Article 2.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement 
requires Members to use international standards, where they exist, as basis for their technical 
regulations, except, when such international standards or relevant par ts would be ineffective or 
inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued, for instance because of 
fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological problems. India's 
notification G/TBT/N/IND/172  sets out quality control requirements for footwear made from leather 
and other materials. Although, the notified standard applies to all footwear entering the Indian 
market, both India -made and imported, puts exporters in a disadvantaged position as the QC O 
restricts the imports.  
2.359.   As the QCO officially came into effect on the 1 July 2023, the utmost priority of footwear 
exporters lies in ensuring full compliance with the new legal framework. It is important to note that 
certain uncertainties persist to date , despite the multiple postponements of the entry into force date. 
The EU would therefore like to request the Indian authorities to consider granting targeted temporary 
exemptions for the following specific cases:  Products already available on the market,  particularly 
those for which the standards have been revised;  The compulsory use of the standard mark on 
notified products, as specified in the QCO issued in order to cover the new standards;  Professional 
sports footwear, for which the revised standard has not been released yet. The EU would also like 
to request India to provide a comprehensive list of HS codes of products covered by this QCO. The 
EU would like to recall that international standards should be used to facilitate trade and to limit the 
costs incurred by footwear manufacturers. Additionally, footwear imported to India should be allowed 
to be tested in laboratories outside of India. Testing only in India causes delays and additional costs. 
The EU would like to suggest to India to allow those brands, which meet the EU standards in footwear 
production to export to India, based on self -certification.  
2.360.   In response, the representative of India provided the following statement. India has taken 
various initiatives to improve the quality of footwear an d QCOs are an important component in this 
regard. However, level playing field has been ensured for foreign and domestic manufacturers. India 
has its own quality standards developed by BIS and import of footwear and leather items to India 
has to follow the se standards. Being one of the largest consumer markets, India has to protect the 
consumer's rights. As per the BIS Act, 2016, Leather and Footwear QCOs comes under scheme -I 
(ISI Mark Scheme) for which self -testing is not allowed to prevent the risk to hum an life and safety. 
All concerns of foreign manufacturers are being appropriately addressed by having meeting with 
them at various levels. We thank the UK and EU for the ongoing engagement on a bilateral basis on 
this STC.  
2.1.4.42   European Union - Chlorothalonil ( pesticide active substance), 
G/TBT/N/EU/625 , G/SPS/N/EU/394  (ID 579100) 
2.361.   The representative of Colombia  provided the following statement. Colombia is aware of the 
importance of foods free from excess pesticide residues that comply with internatio nal safety 
recommendations. However, the ban on active substances such as mancozeb, clothianidin, 
thiamethoxam and chlorothalonil, and the subsequent non -renewal of the approval of these 
substances, are hitting our country's agricultural export sector hard . While our health authorities are 
going to great lengths with the productive sectors to explore alternatives to meet the requirements, 
the search for substances to replace those that have been banned or whose approval is being 
modified requires time and i nvestment, especially when potential alternatives are also becoming 
scarcer owing to changes to phytosanitary regulations in the European Union. A typical example of 
this, but not the only one, is the limited availability of an alternative to mancozeb, on account of 
similar substances, such as chlorothalonil, being banned in the European market. In this context, it 
is vital that the non -renewal or modification of approval for active substances takes into account 
production processes and methods in countries  that could be affected. Failing to do so would violate 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which stipulates that technical regulations shall not be more 
trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. Failing to do so also seems to violat e 
 
100 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 579. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 101 - 
 
  Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement, which states that account should be taken of the special financial 
and trade needs of developing countries, with a view to ensuring that regulations, standards and 
conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecess ary obstacles to exports. In this regard, 
we agree with arguments presented in this Committee expressing the need for the European Union 
to bring maximum residue levels into line with the levels established within the framework of the 
Codex Alimentarius an d to treat farmers in third countries no less favourably than it does European 
farmers. We therefore invite the European Union to seek out and support solutions that would allow 
our agricultural producers to continue meeting the European demand for food, t o the benefit of not 
only developing countries but also the multilateral trading system, which has already been hit hard 
by this and other measures.  
2.362.   The representative of Costa Rica  provided the following statement. Costa Rica wishes to 
reiterate this conc ern and refers to previous statements expressing its concern about the measure 
notified by the EU in document G/TBT/N/EU/625 , which relates to the non -renewal of the approval 
of the active substance chlorothalonil. Costa Rica thanks the EU for its wil lingness to discuss 
agrochemicals policy, taking into consideration international foreign trade -related obligations and 
the agricultural and environmental policy objectives of the member countries of the international 
community. Costa Rica also reiterates its request and its commitment to leaving nobody behind in 
the implementation of its Green Deal policy.  
2.363.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil reiterates its support to 
STC 579, which has been brought to the attention of the TBT, in the form of STC, since March 2019. 
As much as Brazil thanks for the thorough attempts to explain such measures, it still constitutes a 
clear breach of the TBT Agreement and of other more general WTO principles and mandatory 
guidelines, for the reas ons stated below: It lacks an adequate risk analysis; It is not in compliance 
with long -standing scientific principles; The use of chlorothalonil is currently authorized in more than 
100 countries; Codex states that it could reach up to 70 mg/kg. The Brazi lian Health Regulatory 
Agency has set MRLs for chlorothalonil applied to more than 30 crops. The case of chlorothalonil is 
particularly harmful towards Brazil's producers of banana, coffee, citrus fruits, papaya and 
watermelon, among other products. In thi s sense, Brazil would appreciate a brief explanation about 
the reasons for such discrepancy between Codex and the UE estimates. Which risks where identified 
regarding chlorothalonil residues? Were there concrete circumstances in which consumers were 
harmed ? Furthermore, Brazil would appreciate being informed about how many import tolerance 
authorizations have been issued in the last five years. While thanking for the link provided in 
G/SPS/GEN/2139 , it could not be accessed. Brazil would also kindly re quest that the EU informs 
objectively, transparently and inclusively what kind of information is considered appropriate for 
"import tolerance" or "emergency use" authorizations to be issued. If other countries are being 
benefited by any type of special wai ver in this matter, the European Union will not only be imposing 
unnecessary technical barriers to trade, but also incurring in discrimination.  
2.364.   The representative of Paraguay  provided the following statement. This concern and the 
non-renewal of the approva l of chlorothalonil and other substances were already discussed 
extensively both in this Committee and in the SPS Committee because of the subsequent reduction 
of MRLs. We therefore refer to previous statements and request that the statement we made at the  
previous meeting of this Committee be included in the minutes of this meeting. Thank you very 
much.  
2.365.   Statement from June 2023 meeting, in full.101 This concern and the non -renewal of the 
approval of chlorothalonil and other substances were already discussed extensively both in this 
Committee and in the SPS Committee because of the subsequent reduction of MRLs. We once again 
request that the European Union take into considera tion information on pesticides provided by the 
specialized agencies recognized by the WTO, such as the Codex Alimentarius. We also ask it to 
reconsider its approach and base its decisions on conclusive scientific evidence and real risk 
weightings, in accor dance with international standards and principles, and ensure import tolerances.  
2.366.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU thanks WTO Members for raising this issue once again. As explained in detail at several 
previous meetings, on 29 April 2019, the European Commission adopted the Implementing 
 
101 G/TBT/M/90 , para. 3.413.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 102 - 
 
  Regulation (EU) 2019/677102 on the non -renewal of approval of the active substance Chlorothalonil, 
which was previously notified to the TBT Committee. This was bas ed on a peer -reviewed risk 
assessment carried out by an EU member State (the so -called "rapporteur" member State) and the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Several serious concerns were raised by EFSA, so that the 
approval conditions for the substance  were not fulfilled. As regards consumer safety, EFSA identified 
a genotoxicity concern for residues to which consumers would be exposed. Following the 
non-renewal of the approval decision and based on the fact that consumer health concerns were 
identified  by EFSA, the EU prepared a draft Regulation lowering the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) 
for Chlorothalonil to the relevant limits of quantification. The draft Regulation was notified to the 
WTO/SPS  Committee ( G/SPS/N/EU/394 ) and published after its adoption as Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2021/155103 of 9 February 2021. The EU wishes to emphasise that, although the substance 
chlorothalonil also meets the cut off criteria, decisions on MRLs in the EU are always based on a risk 
assessment and that this approach ha s also been followed for chlorothalonil. The new MRL values 
apply to all food products since 2 September 2021. Since then, there has been no further 
developments in the EU on this substance as no new data to support import tolerances were 
received. Import tolerance requests, which need to be supported by substantial new data addressing 
the concerns, remain possible and will be assessed on a case -by-case basis by the "rapporteur" EU 
member State and EFSA.  
2.1.4.43   Australia - Maturation requirements for imported alc ohol (ID 636104) 
2.367.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement. In advance I would like to 
thank the Australian delegation for our bilateral. It was a very important and constructive 
conversation and I believe the cooperation of Australia is  very positive. The regulation "Australian 
Customs Notice No. 2007/19", which requires that some alcoholic beverages must be matured in 
wood for a minimum of two years, continues to impose a barrier to the trade of cachaça with less 
than two years of aging . Brazil and Australia both agree that there is no plausible technical reason 
to require maturation of sugarcane derivatives. In this sense, after four years since first bringing 
this matter up for discussion, it is high time the Australian government prov ides a concrete solution. 
As much as Brazil appreciates the current measures to promote legislative reform, a clear violation 
to the TBT Agreement cannot persist for that long for bureaucratic reasons. In that sense, the 
Brazilian government requests that immediate provisional concrete measures be taken to remove 
this ban, while a more permanent solution is unavailable.  
2.368.   In response, the representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia 
acknowledges Brazil's interest in Australia's matu ration requirements for certain imported alcohol 
products and its concern with how these requirements impact cachaca. As the Committee is aware, 
Australia established a whole -of-government working group in 2022 to consider trading partners' 
concerns regard ing the maturation requirements for the importation of certain alcohol products into 
Australia. This working group continues to meet, most recently in August 2023. This is a complex 
issue which requires resourcing from multiple government portfolios. Any l egislative changes to 
section 105A of the Customs Act 1901 and any other possible changes to requirements contained in 
other legislation need to be made in accordance with Australia's domestic regulatory reform 
processes. Australia takes seriously these co ncerns and has ensured Government Ministers remain 
updated on the status of this issue. We appreciate the patience shown while we work through the 
complexities of a resolution. The Australian Government will notify the TBT Committee of any 
proposed changes  to address the issue when we are able, in accordance with Australia's obligations 
under the TBT Agreement. We remain committed to our productive bilateral engagement on this 
matter.  
 
102 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29  April 2019 concerning the non -renewal of 
the approval of the active substance chlorothalonil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market a nd 
amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011. OJ L 114, 30.04.2019, p. 15.  
103 Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/155 of 9 February 2021 amending Annexes II, III and V to 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Counc il as regards maximum residue 
levels for carbon tetrachloride, chlorothalonil, chlorpropham, dimethoate, ethoprophos, fenamidone, 
methiocarb, omethoate, propiconazole and pymetrozine in or on certain products. OJ L 46, 10.2.2021, p. 5.  
104 For previous state ments follow the thread under ID 636. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 103 - 
 
  2.1.4.44   Colombia – Good manufacturing practices of overseas production 
establishm ents, G/TBT/N/COL/242  (ID 697105) 
2.369.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to thank Colombia for its engagement in the WTO -TBT Committee and for the 
extensive bilateral discussions. The EU understands that Colombia is currently in the process of 
amending the relevan t Decree to remove the GMP certification requirement and welcomes this 
development. We also understood that an impact assessment on the modification of the decree was 
carried out and concluded on 15 August this year. In this respect, the EU would be thankf ul for any 
further information on this process, notably on the envisaged timeline and confirmation of the final 
content of the modification. We are looking forward to a rapid conclusion to avoid any legal 
uncertainty and/or disruption of trade flows. The E U would like to thank again Colombia for their 
cooperation in this matter.  
2.370.   In response, the representative of Colombia  provided the following statement. First, I would 
like to highlight the work that has been carried out by the health authorities of Colomb ia and the 
countries concerned, with a view to clarifying the concerns raised regarding this measure. Second, 
a regulatory impact analysis was indeed carried out, and the comments received were assessed 
during the national public consultation held last Aug ust. As a result, our Ministry of Health has stated 
that it is possible to amend and update Decree No.  162 of 2021, which it is in the process of doing. 
With this update, Free Sales Certificates may once more be used to indicate the quality of alcoholic 
beverages, thus addressing concerns raised by some trading partners and streamlining procedures 
for importers and certificate validation. Third and final point, we reiterate our willingness to continue 
discussions to facilitate enforcement of the measure and  put an end to this trade concern.  
2.1.4.45   Egypt – Halal Certification Measure, based on Egyptian Standard ES 4249/2014 
General Requirements for Halal Food According to Islamic Sharia, G/TBT/N/EGY/313 , 
G/TBT/N/EGY/313/Add.1 , G/TBT/N/EGY/313/Ad d.2, G/TBT/N/EGY/313/Add.6  (ID 
718106) 
2.371.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to express concerns with regard to the requirements on Hal al certification as of 
1 October 2021 based on the Egyptian Halal standard 4249/2014. The EU industry is worried about 
the negative impact of this measure on food and beverages imports to Egypt. The EU has noted that 
the waiver for dairy products was then extended several times, most recently until 31 December of 
2023, by the latest Addendum 6, as introduced on 8 August. We would like to appreciate this 
considerable level of flexibility of Egypt's authorities, which is very helpful to economic operators. 
Nevertheless, economic operators still miss several important and practical information, as 
mentioned in EU comments from January 2022, such as deadlines for issuance of certificates by IS 
EG Halal, details on audits, etc. EU comment regarding the monopolist ic position of the IS EG Halal, 
does not seem to have been considered either. There have been unverified reports that a second 
certifier has been appointed and rumours that rules are being drafted to open up the possibilities to 
other companies to apply to  become certifiers.  
2.372.   In this context the EU would like to invite Egypt to reconsider the decision to grant the right 
to certify the compliance with Halal requirements to a single company, IS EG Halal, and to provide 
for a Halal certification system that wo uld allow multiple, well -established certification entities, in 
accordance with the international best practices. The requirement to re -certify, by IS EG Halal, 
products already certified by other certification bodies, is an unnecessary duplication and lea ds to 
delays and ultimately to higher costs for consumers in Egypt adding to inflationary pressures. The 
EU would like to ask Egypt to consider keeping the Halal certification and labelling voluntary for dairy 
products, in order to pursue the legitimate ob jective of ensuring reliable information without unduly 
hindering trade flows. Consumers should be able to decide whether to buy Halal -certified food or 
not, based on clear labelling. Finally, the EU would like to ask Egypt about the concrete steps 
envisag ed to provide comprehensive information about the new measures and clear written and 
publicly available guidance to stakeholders, including a detailed description of the certification 
procedure, its duration, costs, and required documents, as well as the p rocess for registration of 
 
105 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 697. 
106 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 718. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 104 - 
 
  suppliers. The EU is ready to work with Egypt on solutions that would prevent the negative impact 
this measure would have on food and beverages imports to Egypt.  
2.373.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. A ustralia thanks Egypt for 
ongoing bilateral communication on the implementation of new Halal certification requirements for 
food and beverage products of animal origin. Australia reiterates the importance of open and 
transparent communication on these requ irements for trading partners and so Egypt can meet its 
policy goals while ensuring measures are not more trade restrictive than necessary. Australia 
continues to seek written feedback to comments on TBT notification G/TBT/N/EGY/313  provided in 
January 2022 and would welcome a response from Egypt. Australia also invites Egypt to separately 
notify the TBT Committee of the revised Egyptian standard 4249 "General Requirements on Halal 
Food according to Islamic Sharia" before finalization and publication . Australia welcomes ongoing 
discussion on the implementation of Egypt's Halal certification measures.  
2.374.   The representative of New Zealand  provided the following statement. New Zealand thanks 
the Egyptian Organization for Standards and Quality (EOS) for publ ication of the final halal standard, 
ES4249. We note the scope of the new Standard's application is meat products, and animal fats and 
lipids, and only those general food products which contain specific non -dairy animal product 
additives. New Zealand under stands that Egypt will provide further clarification on the 
implementation of the ES4249 standard. We request that this set out clearly: (1) the responsibility 
of the respective Egyptian government agencies for the different steps of the halal certificatio n 
process, and their relevant contact points; and (2) the specific steps that domestic and foreign 
suppliers of halal products must follow to comply with the Standard, including publication of issues 
such as timeframes, registration/audit requirements, fee  schedules and labelling requirements. Once 
it has been notified to the WTO and has been consulted on as a final set of requirements for Halal 
imports into Egypt, New Zealand requests that a reasonable transition period, of at least 
6-12 months is provided . This transitional period will allow exporters time to understand and comply 
with any new requirements. We invite Egypt to further consider the approval of multiple halal 
certification bodies for certification of halal food products into the Egyptian mark et, in accordance 
with international best practice. Allowing multiple, well -established, certification bodies to certify 
products as halal will make Egypt's halal regulations less trade restrictive, reduce the impact of 
duplication and other unnecessary co sts on consumers, help resolve supply chain issues, and 
promote Egypt's overall food security.   
2.375.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada continues to be 
concerned by Egypt's new halal certification requirements for all importe d food and beverage 
products. While Canada understands Egypt's objective to ensure that Egyptian consumers are 
confident that they are buying and consuming Halal -certified products, we believe that such 
measures should not create unnecessary barriers to in ternational trade or be more trade -restrictive 
than necessary to fulfil that objective. Canada welcomes Egypt's delayed implementation of the halal 
certification for dairy products to 31 December 2023. However, Canadian exporters require 
additional informa tion to adapt to these new measures. The current lack of clarity surrounding 
procedures, fee structures, audit details, documentation requirements, and the specific 
implementation process is causing ongoing ambiguity and uncertainty. In light of these conc erns, 
Canada refers to our previous statements made at this committee and urges Egypt to reconsider the 
implementation of this measure. The absence of a clear implementation protocol, coupled with 
unnecessary added cost and administrative burden further hi ghlights the need for Egypt to 
reconsider this measure. Canada strongly encourages Egypt to engage in open and transparent 
discussions with trading partners to share information, provide further clarification on the 
requirements associated with this new me asure and to consider the impact it may have on trade. 
Canada also recommends that Egypt explore the establishment of halal certification offices overseas 
or partner with existing certification bodies in other member countries, including Canada. Until thes e 
concerns are addressed, Canada respectfully requests that Egypt suspend the implementation of 
this measure. This would allow for the necessary dialogue and collaboration between both nations, 
fostering a conducive environment for trade and ensuring the s mooth transition for Canadian 
exporters.  
2.376.   The representative of India provided the following statement. India would like to reiterate 
its previous concern as we await Egypt's response to the previous statement. India joins other WTO 
Members in raising conce rns with Egypt's new halal certification requirements for all imported food 
and beverage products. In the context of the Egyptian Standard ES 4249/2014 on General 
Requirements for Halal Food according to Islamic Sharia, India seeks detailed information con cerning G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 105 - 
 
  implementation of the same. Further, India seeks Egypt's reconsideration on the decision to grant 
the right to certify the compliance with halal requirements to a single entity, and requests Egypt to 
provide a system that would allow other certific ation entities to certify as well. In light of the currently 
prevailing challenges with the measure, India requests Egypt to delay the implementation until the 
challenges are resolved.  
2.377.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement. We share the concerns 
expressed by other Members regarding the requirements for halal certification and refer to previous 
statements in this Committee. We appreciate that the Egyptian authorities have extended the period 
during which imports of milk and dairy  products without a halal certificate are allowed until the end 
of 2023. To prevent ambiguities and uncertainties, Switzerland asks for a further extension of the 
exemption for milk and dairy products until at least six months after the publication and TBT  
notification of a clearly defined and final scope as well as clear guidelines and procedures for the 
implementation of halal requirements for milk and dairy products. We also reiterate the importance 
of recognizing – in accordance with the international b est practices – foreign halal certification bodies 
and to clarify the criteria for the acceptance of foreign halal certificates.  
2.378.   The representative of the United States  provided the following statement. The United States 
continues to have concerns with the  lack of clarity provided by Egypt in its implementation of 
changes to its halal certification requirements. The continuing lack of clarity has resulted in growing 
uncertainty for U.S. exporters who seek to comply with this measure. While the United States  
appreciates Egypt delaying implementation of this measure until 1 January 2024, what is most 
needed is clear information that will allow exporters to understand and comply with the new 
requirements. The United States renews its request that Egypt publish a technical regulation that 
describes the implementing procedures for all products that require halal certification as a condition 
of import, including dairy products. While Egypt has deferred previous questions about 
implementation to the designated certi fier, details about fee structures, documentation 
requirements, production process requirements, test methods, etc., are the responsibility of the 
regulatory authority. We encourage the Government of Egypt to publish these details to ensure 
uniform impleme ntation of this measure and to maintain halal integrity.  
2.379.   The United States also requests that Egypt include in the technical regulation a clear scope 
of products that require halal certification, which will consolidate or resolve discrepancies in previous  
notifications. Finally, the United States renews its request that Egypt allow overseas certification 
bodies to again provide halal certification services for products exported to Egypt. Having multiple 
halal certification companies increases halal assuran ce while lowering certification costs. With recent 
approval of a new halal certifying body in Egypt, we also request that Egypt communicate the criteria 
and process that it uses to determine which certification bodies are approved or not approved? Does 
Egypt have a timeline for when it plans to approve additional certification bodies, including those 
based in the United States? The United States thanks Egypt for its continued willingness to work 
with the United States and other trading partners to ensure th at exporters have adequate 
information to understand and comply with its new halal requirements. The United States looks 
forward to Egypt's response and toward continuing to provide quality halal products to Egyptian 
consumers.  
2.380.   The representative of Paragu ay provided the following statement. Paraguay reiterates its 
concern and requests that its statement from the March 2023 meeting be put on record.  
2.381.   Statement from March 2023 meeting, in full.107 We thank the delegations of the United 
States of America, the E uropean Union, India, Kenya and Canada for including this item on the 
Committee's agenda and we request that the support of Paraguay be recorded.  While Paraguay 
shares Egypt's interest in providing its consumers with certainty regarding the purchase and 
consumption of halal -certified products, the lack of clear information and details on application 
procedures prevents operators from being able to adapt to comply with them.  Paraguay again 
requests Egypt to suspend the implementation of new halal certificati on requirements until Members 
have all the requested information and business operators have sufficient time to adapt in order to 
comply.  
2.382.   In response, the representative of Egypt  provided the following statement. Egypt thanks the 
United States, the Europea n Union, India, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Paraguay 
 
107 G/TBT/M/89 , para. 2.275.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 106 - 
 
  for their interest in this issue and their continued engagement on the matter, while recognizing 
Egypt's right to adopt the halal certification requirements, which we deem necessary and appropriate 
to achieve our legitimate policy objective yet remain consistent with our obligations under the TBT 
Agreement. Recognizing the comments that our trading partners raised in the last Committee 
meetings and in the bilateral meetings we had with th em, Egypt would like to point out that since 
the introduction of the requirement with respect to milk and dairy products by General Organization 
For Veterinary Services (GOVS), Egypt has introduced a number of facilitating measures extending 
the timeline t o abide by the requirement for more than a year now. This has provided the business 
operators an appropriate period of time to adapt to the set of requirements. It is also important to 
note that since its initial notification, Egypt has been clear that the  certification body currently 
recognized by the required authority is ISEG Halal. In fact, a lot of exporters have indeed approached 
ISEG Halal and issued the Halal certification successfully.  
2.383.   It is also important to clarify that the Egyptian standard ES42 49 does not and shall not 
provide for any supervision requirements for a specific certification body. As per notification 
G/TBT/N/EGY/313/Add.6 , the extension of the time period during which imports of milk and dairy 
products that are not accompanied by a Halal certificate were allowed to enter into Egypt until the 
end of this year, as a trade -facilitating measu re and in response to the requests made in this respect. 
It is also worth noting that during the period April 2023 until now, no imports of milk and dairy 
products have been denied entry if not accompanied by a Halal certificate. Moreover, the relevant 
authority is currently preparing the necessary technical regulation with respect to Halal requirements 
for dairy products that comprise: the product coverage which will be confined to dairy products as 
stipulated in ES4249/2023; the role of the relevant entit ies involved including the Halal certification 
bodies, to be approved by the relevant authority; also there will be a transitional period between 
issuance of the regulation and its entry into force to allow producers in exporting countries to duly 
adapt. F urthermore, the competent authorities would also publish the criteria for approving Halal 
certification bodies, including the requirement for registration at the relevant authority. It will be 
duly notified once issued. Finally, I would like to stress that  Egypt is committed to continue its 
bilateral exchanges on the matter with all interested trading partners and to take into account their 
concerns as appropriate and stress our commitment to the transparency requirements under the 
TBT Agreement.  
2.1.4.46   India - Order related to requirement of Health certificate accompanied with 
imported food consignment of Milk and Milk Products, Pork and Pork Products & Fish and 
Fish Products, G/TBT/N/IND/233  (ID 780108) 
2.384.   The representative of the European Union  provided the  following statement. The EU would 
like to thank India for postponing, until 1 January 2024, the entry into force of the certificate for the 
import milk and milk products, and for putting on hold, until further notice, the two certificates for 
the imports of pork and pork products and fish and fish products. The EU would also like to thank 
India for the bilateral exchange that helped clarify a number for open issues. In relation to the animal 
health and food safety (integrated) certificate for import of mil k and milk products, the EU would 
like to ask India to remove from the certificate all the requirements that are not covered by the 
Codex Alimentarius, such as those related to pesticides, several antibiotics and other drugs, or to 
provide a scientific jus tification to maintain those requirements. In relation to the integrated 
certificates for import into India of pork and pork products and fish and fish products, the EU would 
like to ask India to: - Clarify the state of play of the two integrated certifica tes; - Confirm that the 
existing animal health certificates are the only certificates required; - Confirm that the food safety 
certificates were withdrawn.  
2.385.   In relation to the certificates used to import the three types of products (milk, pork, fish, 
and their respective products), the EU would like to ask India to: - Remove from all certificates the 
non-animal health and non -food safety elements and requirements, such as invoice numbers, 
limitation of certain milk coagulating enzymes, etc.; - Clarify the m odalities related to audits to the 
exporting countries, inspections of facilities, questionnaires, regionalization, border checks and 
listing of establishments associated to all the certificates, if and when these requirements will be 
made obligatory by an y of the authorities of India; - Notify to both the WTO TBT and SPS Committees 
the above -mentioned modalities and all future certificates – including integrated certificates – well 
in advance of the date of their entering into force, to ensure full transpa rency and timely follow -up 
by all the competent authorities, producers and exporters; - Take into consideration the comments 
 
108 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 780. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 107 - 
 
  that the EU has sent or may still send to India in relation to the certificates and provide in writing 
the scientific justification s for not taking those comments into account; and - In the future, avoid 
the duplication of sanitary measures in and associated to the different certificates, which are required 
by different competent authorities of India; Finally, the EU reiterates its av ailability to cooperate 
with the competent authorities of India, to enhance mutual understanding and avoid unnecessary 
and unjustified disruptions to trade.  
2.386.   The representative of Australia  provided the following statement. Australia supports the 
concerns o f the European Union, New Zealand, Japan, Switzerland and Canada. Australia respects 
India's commitment to protect the safety standards for food products imported into India. Australia 
thanks India for providing clarification on the requirements of the cer tification order, including that 
a single certificate incorporating both FSSAI's and DAHD's requirements is acceptable. Australia also 
thanks India for extending the deadline for dairy certificate negotiations until 31 December 2023 
and providing a formal response to Australia's proposed dairy health certificate. Australia maintains 
a well -established, robust export system and is a source of reliable, wholesome, and safe agricultural 
exports. Australia's export system is underpinned by a strong regulatory f ramework enforced 
through compliance with Australia's export control legislation. This legislation provides trading 
partners with assurance that exported food products are free from harmful contaminants, are 
suitable for human consumption, and that importi ng country requirements are met. Australia is 
committed to working with India to negotiate mutually agreeable health certification for imports of 
Australian milk and milk products into India before the proposed 31 December 2023 deadline. 
Australia encourag es India to minimize requirements that duplicate commercial information provided 
and consider recognising equivalent food safety outcomes in certification. As noted in previous 
statements Australia would appreciate India's assurance that existing health ce rtification for milk 
and milk products, previously bilaterally agreed with DAHD, will continue to be accepted until 
certification negotiations are concluded, should negotiations extend beyond 31 December 2023.  
2.387.   The representative of New Zealand  provided the  following statement. New Zealand thanks 
FSSAI for the interactive process that was undertaken to gain approval for the New Zealand 
certificates and supports FSSAI's goal in ensuring India has robust food safety requirements. We 
would like to ask that for any future changes to India's certification requirements, FSSAI allows 
longer implementation periods, factoring in time to consider submissions by Member countries on 
the relevant WTO notification, and time for countries to do any required assessment and i mplement 
changes to requirements accordingly. A minimum of six months, but preferably twelve months, 
would likely provide countries sufficient time for adequate implementation. The certificate approval 
process by both FSSAI and DAHD is lengthy and New Zeal and requests that consideration is given 
to simplifying this process for government -to-government negotiated certificates that don't exactly 
line up with the proposed template i.e. provision of equivalent assurances as per CAC/GL 38 -2001 
Codex Guidelines f or Design, Production, Issuance and Use of Generic Official Certificates. New 
Zealand recommends that DAHD and FSSAI's internal processes be coordinated prior to issuing any 
new food safety certification requirements, to avoid unnecessary duplication parti cularly when there 
is no added food safety benefit.  
2.388.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. Japan reiterates again its 
concerns regarding India's Order related to requirement of health certificate accompanied with 
imported food consignment of milk, pork, fish and related products. India has announced the 
extensi on of the date of implementation, and a specific date of implementation has not been 
announced yet. Although Japan appreciates India's decision to extend the date of implementation, 
we still think that India should set sufficient transition period before t he implementation of the Order 
in order to allow time for exporting Members to adapt their system to the new health certificate 
forms. Japan notes that one of the objectives of India's Order is to ensure the safety of imported 
food products into India. If that is the case, Japan considers that India should notify the Order under 
the SPS Agreement as well.  
2.389.   The representative of Switzerland  provided the following statement. Switzerland shares the 
concerns expressed by other Members with regard to India's requ irement of a health certificate in 
particular for milk and milk products. Switzerland thanks India for the bilateral discussions on the 
health certificate to date and remains committed to work with the Indian authorities to find solutions 
for an amended Sw iss health certificate in order to avoid unnecessary obstacles to trade. We ask 
India to postpone the introduction of new health certification requirements until there is more clarity 
with regard to the content as well as to the coordination of the compete nt authorities' procedures in 
order to avoid duplication.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 108 - 
 
  2.390.   The representative of Canada  provided the following statement. Canada welcomes India's 
decision to delay the implementation of FSSAI's new certification requirements until further notice, 
giving suf ficient time for competent authorities to develop a joint certificate. Canada reiterates its 
concerns with a number of new FSSAI certification requirements, which reference Indian regulations, 
requirements and product standards, and encourages India to str eamline certification requirements, 
and base its requirements on international standards. Canada again requests India to notify these 
requirements to the SPS Committee given that India's proposed regulation covers food safety 
measures aimed at protecting h uman health and safety.  
2.391.   In response, the representative of India provided the following statement. Considering the 
representations received from various stakeholders including member nations, FSSAI and 
Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying agreed on an integrated veterinary health certificate 
(VHC) for milk and milk products, which covers both food safety as well as sanitary related 
provisions, required by both the departments (FSSAI and DAHD) to facilitate trade. Accordingly, 
order related to the int egrated veterinary health certificate for milk and milk products was issued 
vide DAHD O.M. no. L -11/1/2019 - Trade (E -11542) dated 31 March 2023. For further facilitation of 
trade, transition time for implementation of the requirement of integrated Veterina ry Health 
Certificate for milk and milk products has been extended till 31 December 2023 vide DAHD O.M. 
dated 17 July 2023. Therefore, the imported consignments of milk and milk products having bill of 
lading/ date of issuance of VHC from exporting countri es after 31 December 2023 will only be 
considered for post - import clearance, based upon integrated veterinary health certificate for import 
of milk and milk product into India. FSSAI has received proposed integrated veterinary health 
certificates from var ious countries for negotiation regarding language and requirements given in the 
integrated veterinary health certificate by India. The received draft health certificates have been 
examined for General Information and Food Safety related conditions. The def iciencies observed in 
the draft certificates have been communicated to the respective countries. Majority of countries have 
agreed with the Integrated Health Certificate. However, few countries have raised minor concerns 
with respect to modification in the  language, which have been addressed. Specifically, bilateral 
engagements with Australia and New Zealand are ongoing on this issue. We also acknowledge 
constructive bilateral dialogue with the EU on this STC.  
2.1.4.47   Morocco - Conformity assessment, G/TBT/N/MAR/28  (ID 779109) 
2.392.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. On 
18 December 2019 Morocco notified to the WTO TBT Committee the verification of conformity of 
certain imported industrial goods under reference G/TBT/N/MAR/28 . The EU sent comments in 
January 2020 and also followed up with bilateral discussions and two letters. Despite these 
discussions concerns remain on the EU side. As regards the conformity control system for industrial 
products, Morocco informed us that th e legislative framework does not make a distinction on the 
basis of whether the product is imported or manufactured locally. However, the arrangements for 
checking compliance vary depending on whether imported or local products are concerned. Since 
the int roduction of the new system in February 2020, checks on imported industrial products have 
been outsourced for a lot of products and require the systematic obtaining of a certificate of 
conformity issued by one of the five approved bodies, which is very bur densome and costly. On the 
other hand, checks on local products are carried out based on a national market surveillance plan, 
and risk -based according to the products in question, so not on a systematic basis. This difference 
in treatment seems problematic  to us. The TBT Agreement (Article 5.1) provides that conformity 
assessment procedures should be prepared, adopted and applied so as to grant access to suppliers 
of like products originating in other Members under conditions no less favourable than those 
accorded to suppliers of like products of national origin, in a comparable situation.  
2.393.   We have furthermore been informed by our industry that of the five conformity assessment 
bodies that can perform these checks, two are currently suspended. This makes it even more difficult 
for the EU industry to access the Moroccan market. The Moroccan conformity assessment procedure 
for the respective products create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade as the procedures 
seem stricter than necessary to give Mor occo adequate confidence that products conform with the 
requirements set out in technical regulations. In this respect some aspects of the procedures need 
to be clarified, such as whether there is any possibility for importers to avoid repeating the 
confor mity assessment procedure for any shipment to Morocco, which seems to be unnecessarily 
burdensome in particular for less risky products. Moreover, as to Morocco's technical regulations 
 
109 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 779. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 109 - 
 
  that impose the use of Moroccan standards corresponding to internationa l and EU standards, 
Morocco should accept EU certificates that are based on the same international and EU standards 
and done by ILAC laboratories like a lot of countries are doing world -wide. Another important 
problem that we face is that some Moroccan reg ulations depart from international standards without 
providing an adequate justification. The standardization process and the subsequent transformation 
of the national standards into compulsory technical regulations also raise questions of transparency. 
We would be grateful if Morocco could take these concerns into account and work on the review of 
their conformity assessment system. We are ready to engage in bilateral discussions in order to 
clarify the issue further.  
2.394.   The representative of Morocco  did not provide a response to the concerns raised.  
2.1.4.48   India - Safety requirements with respect to the Rechargeable Electrical Energy 
Storage System (REESS) for electric power train vehicles, of AIS -038 and AIS -156 (ID 
774110) 
2.395.   The representative of the Republic of Kor ea provided the following statement. Korea would 
like to express our gratitude to India for the sincere response provided at the March WTO TBT 
Committee and bilateral meetings in response to Korea's review request regarding the "Standards 
for Safety Requir ements for Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems (REESS) for Electric Powertrain 
Vehicles". In September, Korea submitted some follow -up comments on the REESS requirements 
via the TBT Enquiry Point but is yet to receive India's reply. Korea is reaching out o nce again through 
this STC to enquire and address concerns raised by pertinent industries. In accordance with India's 
responding statements to the STC, it is expected that reviews, analysis and stakeholder 
consultations are in progress or will take place f or Amendment 3 of AIS -038 (Rev.2) and Amendment 
3 AIS -156. However, Korean companies exporting automotive batteries/cells to India are currently 
in confusion regarding the implementation schedules of the aforementioned standards, given that 
phased implemen tation dates for the amended testing standards published on the MoRTH (Ministry 
of Road Transport and Highways)'s website last 27 September were specified as 1 December 2022, 
and 31 March 2023. Therefore, Korea would like to make an inquiry about the curre nt 
implementation status of the Amendments to AIS -038 (Rev.2) and AIS -156. If they are not yet in 
effect, we would like to request information about their tentative schedules or upcoming timelines.  
2.396.   In addition, according to the "Testing Parameters to Enha nce Human Safety of Incentivised 
Electric Vehicles" (hereinafter, the 'Guidelines for Battery Safety Test') disclosed by the Ministry of 
Heavy Industries (MHI) of India on 2 November 2022, it is our understanding that starting from 
1 October 2023, UL 1642 will be mandatorily applied for electric vehicle battery cells, and either UL 
2271 or UL 2580, along with IEC 62133 -2, will be mandatorily applied for battery packs, to verify 
that the battery products for electric vehicles meet Advanced Chemistry Cell (AC C) criteria, which in 
turn determines eligibility for incentives. However, the UL 1642 standard covers lithium battery cells 
that are user -replaceable and used in portable devices. Since automotive battery cells have a higher 
lithium content than portable device battery cells and cannot be replaced by the user (i.e. the driver), 
we would like to request for your clarification on the reasons for adopting UL 1642 as the ACC 
verification standard for automotive cells. Finally, the Guidelines for Battery Safety  Test do not 
provide clear test procedures and criteria for the Battery Management System (BMS), making it 
difficult for the related industries to comply with the MHI regulation. Therefore, it is also requested 
that more specific information for the BMS te sts be provided.  
2.397.   In response, the representative of India provided the following statement. India would like 
to reiterate the detailed reply given in the previous meeting. As informed earlier, the concerns raised 
by stakeholders including industry from Ger many and Korea were internally reviewed by the panel 
of experts. After examining the proposed modifications in the standards and the intended purpose 
of the clause of the standard, certain suggestions were considered for acceptance. The standards 
are based  on Indian conditions.  
 
110 For previous statements follow the thread  under ID 774. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 110 - 
 
  2.1.4.49   Malaysia - Revision of the Regulations on Alcoholic Beverages in Food 
Regulations 1985, G/TBT/N/MYS/114  (ID 793111) 
2.398.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. The European 
Union would like to tha nk Malaysia for the notification G/TBT/N/MYS/114  of 27 October 2022 on 
amendment to Regulations 361 to 368A and 387 and insertion of a new Regulation 384A to Food 
Regulations 1985. We would like to provide appreciation for very constructive exchanges, which we 
had with Malaysia betw een December 2022 and June 2023, on the subject covered by the said 
notification. At the same time, we are looking forward to further exchanges, until this STC is 
positively resolved. We have also been informed that Malaysian authorities started a suppleme ntary 
review of the legislation in question and there seem to be some positive signals, as regards 
considering comments from international partners. The EU very much appreciates this latest 
development and is waiting for further official information from o ur Malaysian colleagues, particularly 
as regards the planned timeline and the estimated adoption of the adjusted version of the above -
mentioned legislation. By that time, the EU would also highly appreciate a flexible approach from 
the Malaysian authoritie s as regards the implementation of the said Regulations in their current 
version, in order to prevent any further trade disruptions. At the moment, e.g. aperitifs (<15% abv) 
and ready -to-drink products are banned from the market and we understand from Mini stry of Health 
that it will take several years (5) to insert new product categories in the Food Regulations.  
2.399.   The representative of Japan  provided the following statement. We welcome Malaysia's 
comments in the previous Committee on Technical Barriers to Tra de in June that "It is of Malaysia's 
utmost interest to ensure smooth flow of trade with trading partners and we remain ready to 
facilitate the importation of goods into Malaysia, in line with Article 2 of the TBT Agreement." We 
highly appreciate the flexi bility that Malaysia has shown in the amendment regulations for alcoholic 
beverages with respect to lowering minimum alcohol content of Liqueur from 17% to 15% by 
considering Japan's requests partially. However, even if Malaysia lowers minimum alcohol cont ent 
of liqueur to 15%, it is still not possible to import liqueur products with less than 15% alcohol content 
such as prepared cocktails, because there is no such category in Malaysia at the moment. We 
recognize that Malaysia's measure to have no applicabl e category of liqueur products with less than 
15% alcohol content is more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. Thus, 
this measure may conflict with the Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. We would appreciate if Malaysia 
could e xplain the valid reason why there is no category under which liqueur products with less than 
15% alcohol content, while there are some categories for other types of alcohol beverages with less 
than 15% alcohol content in Malaysia. Although we understand th at the process of revising the Food 
Regulations 1985 is currently in its final stage, we appreciate if Malaysia could consider the definition 
of liqueur again, particularly about deleting or lowering the minimum alcohol content of liqueur. 
Though the Food Regulations 1985 is revised once every five years, we also highly hope that Malaysia 
will remove the barrier on trade on liqueur products with less than 15% alcohol content without 
waiting for the timing of the next revision. Lastly, we are very much grate ful that we were able to 
have a bilateral meeting in October to exchange opinions frankly with each other. We also would like 
to continue to follow up on this issue while exchanging opinions with Malaysia.  
2.400.   In response, the representative of Malaysia  provid ed the following statement. Malaysia 
thanks the European Union and Japan for their continued interest in our proposed amendments 
related to the alcoholic beverages. On behalf of my Capital, Malaysia truly appreciates the 
constructive engagements and we are  glad for the opportunity to give better clarity on this matter. 
The requirements for standard and labelling compliance for alcoholic beverages under the Malaysian 
Food Regulations 1985 are existing regulations that have been enforced since their gazetteme nt. 
They are not new regulations, including the categories of alcoholic beverages and their specified 
minimum percentage of alcohol content. As we have explained in the previous TBT Committee 
Meeting, the TBT notification involves proposed amendments to th e Food Regulations 1985 related 
to alcoholic beverages regulations, as part of the national five -years review. The proposed 
amendments involve specific requirements of alcoholic beverages regarding the alcohol content, the 
addition of other ingredients, th e use of food additives and labelling requirements. Following the end 
of the commenting period, Malaysia has positively taken into account the international partners' 
comments in the final draft. Among others, these include amendments related to the alcoho l content 
of wine, wine cocktail, shochu , rice wine, and liqueur, as well as definition of liqueur, rum and vodka. 
Turning to the European Union's statement, we wish to highlight that currently, the proposed 
amendments are in the final stage which is under  the review of the Attorney General's Chambers of 
 
111 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 793. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 111 - 
 
  Malaysia, before final approval by the Minister of Health Malaysia. We will update the interested 
international partners on the date of entering into force, once the amendments are gazetted and 
published. N ormally, a minimum interval of 6 months will be provided between the publication of 
the new amendments and their entry into force. Until the new amendments are gazetted and 
enforced, the existing regulations under the Malaysia Food Regulations 1985 shall b e complied for 
food products that are imported or sold in Malaysia. We appreciate the European Union's 
understanding on this matter.  
2.401.   With regard to the statement by Japan, Malaysia would like to reiterate that we prioritize the 
Codex standard as the main reference in the development of food standards requirements under the 
Malaysian Food Regulations 1985. For alcoholic beverages, it is important to note that there is no 
specific Codex commodity standard prescribed in the Codex standards. The food category in the 
Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) only states the definition of food categories and 
requirements of food additives for alcoholic beverages. According to the notes on food category 
system in the GSFA, the Codex food category descriptor s are not to be legal product designations 
nor intended for labelling purpose. As we understand on the nature of the Codex standards that 
Codex standards and related texts are not a substitute for, or alternative to national legislation. 
Every country's la ws and administrative procedures contain provisions with which it is essential to 
comply. In this case, its applicability to Malaysia is depending on the provisions in the Malaysian 
Food Regulations 1985. Acknowledging the on -going technical bilateral effo rts with Japan, we 
welcome the opportunity for our authority and technical experts to continue discussing on this issue. 
In conclusion, thank you again to the EU and Japan for highlighting their views and concerns, and 
we are ready to engage further with b oth parties, as well as other Members.  
2.1.4.50   European Union - Amendment of the authorisation for the active substance 
sulfoxaflor, G/TBT/N/EU/853  (ID 792112) 
2.402.   The representative of Brazil  provided the following statement. Brazil would like to refer to 
the Eu ropean Union's notification G/TBT/N/EU/853  and to the Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2022/686, restricting the use of sulfoxaflor to indoor uses only, in order to protect bees. 
Sulfoxaflor is a priority crop protection tool used by Brazilian growers of orange. It is used to control 
pests such as the citrus psyllid, an insect that transmits the greening disease, recognized by the 
European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) as a priority pest for control in EFSA's List of Priority Pests of 
October 2019. Greening is a major cause of losses in orange production not only in Brazil, but 
worldwide. Considering the relevance and potential impacts of such measure, Brazil would like to 
reiterate that a solid risk analysis, consistent with the Codex Alimentarius' recommendations, will be 
important to ensure transparency and predictability in the regulatory process. Regulators should 
consider the variety of local conditions, including climate, soil and the different needs and challenges 
posed by agricultural product ion in each country. In Brazil, the use of sulfoxaflor has been approved 
by relevant authorities after rigid technical procedures, including an assessment by the Brazilian 
Institute for the Environment that considered the effects of the substance in bees.  
2.403.   The Brazilian State of São Paulo is the main citrus juice producer and it is also where 84% 
of honey production is concentrated. In that state, there is no evidence of a decline in the number 
of pollinators. On the contrary, honey production in that regio n has increased by about 136% in 
15 years (2008 -2022, BR Citrus). Brazil reiterates, moreover, concern over the 
extraterritoriality  effects of the intended measure. It is out of the scope of the TBT Agreement to 
support unilateral policies aimed at suppose dly protecting the environment in third countries (Article 
2.2). Furthermore, Brazil respectfully asks the EU whether the EFSA study considered data from 
other regions, whether this would be the least trade -restrictive measure, in addition to seeking to 
clarify whether the objective of the measure is to protect pollinators outside EU territory. Once more, 
Brazil would highly appreciate if the EU could provide further clarifications on the proposed measure 
and take these comments into consideration in the re gulatory process.  
2.404.   In response, the representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. 
The EU notified the draft Commission Implementing Regulation amending the conditions of approval 
of the active substance sulfoxaflor on 17 November 20 21 (G/TBT/N/EU/853 ), based on the 
evaluation of confirmatory data, as required in Regulation (EU) 2015/1295 approving its use in the 
EU. On 28 April 2022, the European Commission adopted the Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2022/686 restricting  the use of sulfoxaflor to indoor uses only. The conclusion is based on a 
 
112 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 792. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 112 - 
 
  risk assessment (peer -reviewed at EU level under the lead of the European Food Safety Authority - 
EFSA). EFSA concluded risk to bees is low when plant protection products containing sulfoxaflor are 
used in permanent greenhouses. The measure therefore aims at restricting the conditions of 
approval of the active substance sulfoxaflor to uses only inside permanent greenhouses in order to 
protect bees. In line with Article 3 of the Regula tion 2022/686, the EU member States had to 
withdraw, where necessary, or amend, by 19 November 2022 at the latest, authorisations for plant 
protection products containing sulfoxaflor as an active substance. Furthermore, according to Article 
4 any grace per iod granted by the EU member States (in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1107/2009 for marketing and use of existing stocks) expired by 19 May 2023. The EU would 
like to re -assure that the measure does not lead to any immediate disruptions of trade in agricultural 
goods, as it does not amend MRLs. Separate action will likely be taken on MRLs, following the expiry 
of all grace periods for stocks, and a separate notification will be submitted to the SPS Committee.  
2.1.4.51   Angola - Executive Decree No.  64/2023: Implementation of high security tax 
stamps on alcoholic beverages and liquids, tobacco and its substitutes (ID 803113) 
2.405.   The representative of the European Union  provided the following statement. On March 10, 
2022, Angola published the Executive Decree n°149/22 introducing the obligation to affix High 
Security Tax Stamps on certain products including beverages (beer, wine, spirits, soft drinks) and 
tobacco in orde r to fight smuggling. On 8 April 2022, the Angolan authorities published the Executive 
Decree n°186/22, which suspended the mandatory affixing of high -security tax stamps on all 
alcoholic beverages. On 12 May 2023 Angola published a new decree 64/2023 that  entered into 
force on 11 July 2023 even though there were many calls for a longer transition period. Angola has 
not notified the draft measure to the TBT Committee, and we request Angola to notify as soon as 
possible, so that all Members can provide their  comments on the draft measure well ahead of the 
adoption and entry into force. A small but important concession was made in this new draft: 
operators will have the ability to affix tax stamps in Angola, even if they are not AEO accredited in 
Angola, for s tocks placed in Angola before 11 July and for products for which the import process 
started before 11 July. A number of important concerns remain that we want to see addressed 
rapidly: A stock exhaustion clause for products already placed on the market. Th e decree foresees 
a 180 days period for unstamped products currently on the market to be retrieved by the operator 
to affix tax stamps – this is not realistic. If products have been sold to third parties, it becomes 
practically impossible to retrieve them for the purpose of affixing tax stamps.  
2.406.   The period of validity of tax stamps after purchase is too short. The decree states that tax 
stamps are valid for 180 days from the date of receipt. However, with the problems and delays in 
shipping, imported produc ts bearing tax stamps may arrive in Angola more than six months after 
the receipt of tax stamps, and it is not clear what will happen to these products. More flexibilities is 
needed in terms of where tax stamps could be affixed: there should not be a requi rement for 
operators to be AEO -accredited in Angola to authorize them to affix tax stamps in bonded 
warehouses. In addition, getting the flexibility to affix tax stamps in bonded warehouses in third 
countries logistics hubs would also help. Current provisi ons mean that the vast majority of EU 
operators will be forced to affix tax stamps in the country of production – which will place them at a 
disadvantage compared with local operators. We recall that it is very important to notify the new 
decree to the WTO  TBT Committee. We would like to stress that as a result of the new decree, some 
brands have already decided to stop exporting to Angola. It is therefore essential that the elements 
mentioned are taken up by Angola as a matter of urgency.  
2.407.   The representativ e of Mexico  provided the following statement. The Mexican delegation 
refers to Angolan Executive Decree No. 64/2023 on the implementation of high security tax stamps 
on alcoholic beverages and liquids, tobacco and its substitutes. This Decree entered into force on its 
date of publication of 12 May 2023 and was not notified to WTO Members. In this connection, the 
delegation of Mexico would like to voice the following concerns and requests. Failure to notify the 
Decree and its entry into force contravenes the  provisions of Articles 2.9.2, 2.9.4 and 2.12 of the 
TBT Agreement. The Government of Angola is therefore kindly requested to suspend implementation 
of the Decree, and to notify the TBT Committee, thus giving its trading partners an opportunity to 
submit c omments. In addition, it is a matter of concern that the Decree establishes that tax stamps 
will become mandatory from 12 July 2023, that is, 60 days after the publication of the Decree. This 
time frame is insufficient for producers exporting foreign spiri ts to register and obtain the tax stamps 
required, in contravention of Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement. Accordingly, we ask the Government 
 
113 For previous statements f ollow the thread under ID 803. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 113 - 
 
  of Angola to grant an extension to the transitional period provided under Article 18 of the proposal, 
of at least s ix months.  
2.408.   On the other hand, the Decree lays down provisions imposing burdensome and costly 
requirements that impede international trade, contrary to the principle of proportionality provided 
for in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Of particular concern  is the requirement that operators must 
recover products currently on the market without a stamp within 180 days, in order to affix a tax 
stamp to these products. This measure is too burdensome and complicated for producers. In this 
connection, the Governm ent of Mexico suggests that an exhaustion clause be included for products 
already on the market, with the aim of maintaining trade flows. Furthermore, the Decree establishes 
that, 30 days after its publication, operators must declare to the General Tax Adm inistration the 
quantity of goods, produced domestically and imported, in stock. In practice, this is a complicated 
process and producers need to be granted enough time to carry out these operations. Lastly, the 
measure establishes that imported products m ust be stamped at the place of origin, so operators 
will have to affix the stamps in the country of production, putting them at a disadvantage compared 
to local operators. The Government of Mexico therefore suggests that greater flexibility be granted 
as regards the physical location at which tax stamps may be affixed. The delegation of Mexico thanks 
the delegation of Angola for giving its consideration to this statement.  
2.409.   In response, the representative of Angola  provided the following statement. Angola wou ld 
like to thank European Union and Mexico for their continued interested in this matter. The Executive 
Decree no. 64/23 of May 12, currently in force, establishes the procedures applicable to the tax 
stamp process, sales prices for seals, requisition and affixing rules, conditions of use, periods of use 
and validity, and the definition of dimensions by type of packaging, quantities, weight, number of 
minimum and maximum units of said packaging. It also clarifies the treatment to be given to 
beverages that are already in national territory and the time for applicability. The moratorium was 
lifted, and we had extensive discussions with manufacturers and the beverage industry association, 
so the Executive Decree 64/23 clarifies the conditions for affixing the stamps and the treatment to 
be given to drinks that are already in national territory on the date the decree comes into force, 
particularly article 11, 12 and 18. Moreover, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade aims to 
avoid unnecessary obstacles to  international trade and to recognize the possibility for all WTO 
members to protect legitimate interests according to their own regulatory autonomy, while 
promoting the use of international standards. The list of legitimate interests that can justify a 
restriction on trade is not exhaustive and includes the protection of environment, human and animal 
health and safety. Article 2 of the TBT Agreement obliges states to notify each other of proposed 
technical barriers to trade. With regard to Angola's notific ation on the matter under discussion, we 
would like to clarify that we have had administrative setbacks due to changes in government, 
however the process should be sent to the WTO Secretariat in the next few days, via Angola's 
permanent representation in G eneva. We thank you for your patience and reiterate our commitment 
to the TBT agreement, but above all to guaranteeing the safety and public health of Angolans.  
2.1.4.52   India - Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022 (ID 800114) 
2.410.   The representative of the Republic of K orea provided the following statement. Korea respects 
India's efforts to protect the environment, and the Korean industry is making efforts to comply with 
the "Battery Waste Management Rules" (hereinafter, Rules) that came into force on 24 August 2022. 
However, despite Korea's consecutive submission of official letters of comments through the Enquiry 
Points (on 23 February, 10 May, 3 July and 6 September) and an STC raised at the June TBT 
Committee meeting, Korea has not yet received a substantive response from India to date and thus 
would like to reiterate the pertinent industry's concerns and requests. First, Korea requests an 
exemption from applying the waste battery collection requirement to batteries produced outside 
India. The Rules mandate the collect ion of 100% of waste batteries relative to the total weight of 
the battery placed in the market during each specified compliance cycle (7, 10 and 14 years) as 
determined by the type of battery. The Rules also set the minimum annual collection target rate. 
Indeed, the mandatory 100% waste battery collection target for each compliance cycle is an 
unparalleled requirement that has not been implemented in other countries. This has posed 
significant challenges for the industries involved, making compliance a dau nting task. Second, Korea 
requests an exemption from applying the requirement of minimum use of domestically recycled 
materials (in item 4.(14) of the Rules) to new batteries produced outside India. The companies 
producing batteries in countries other than  India will have to produce batteries exclusively for the 
 
114 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 800. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 114 - 
 
  Indian market in order to fulfill this requirement. Enforcing such rules would present a nearly 
insurmountable challenge for those companies.  
2.411.   In response, the representative of India provided the fo llowing statement. India thanks 
Korea's interest in India's "Battery Waste Management Rules". The Extended Producer Responsibility 
target for recycling or refurbishment of waste batteries has been obligated on producers of battery 
manufacturers including i mporters of batteries. Compliance of EPR target is required to be achieved 
by producers as per the targets provided during the compliance cycle, as applicable. There are two 
compliance cycles. First compliance cycle has EPR target every year. Second compli ance cycle is 
periodic. However, 60% of the average quantity of batteries placed in the market per year during 
the applicable second compliance cycle can be carry forwarded to the next compliance cycle. The 
Extended Producer Responsibility target shall inc lude the collection targets mentioned in the tables 
of Schedule II of Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022 and 100% recycling and/or refurbishment 
target of Extended Producer Responsibility collection target of the respective year. Producer will 
meet their  Extended Producer Responsibility obligation through the Extended Producer Responsibility 
certificate made available by recycler or refurbisher. In case of non -availability of Extended Producer 
Responsibility certificates with recyclers or refurbishes, the  Producer shall have the responsibility of 
collection as well. Rule 4(14) specifies the following: "In case of imported Battery, the Producer shall 
have to meet the obligation of the minimum use by way of getting such quantity of recycled materials 
utilise d by other businesses or by way of exporting such quantity of recycled materials." The 
producer includes importer here. The said rule promotes domestic recycling by mandating importers 
as well to obtain minimum recycled content and get it utilized by other  businesses or by way of 
exporting such quantity of recycled materials.  
2.1.4.53   Oman - Water heaters -energy performance requirements; Electrical Clothes 
Washing Machines Energy and Water performance requirements and Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator -Freezers and Freezer s-Energy Performance, Testing and Labeling 
Requirements (ID 673115) 
2.412.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  provided the following statement. Korea 
government appreciates the response provided by the Omani government on 5 September regarding 
the Energy Performance Requirements for washing machines and refrigerators. However, there are 
still concerns within the Korean industry related to the regulations that we would like to convey. In 
Oman's previous response, it was mentioned that the standards were adopted in 2022, and are set 
to be implemented in 2023, allowing manufacturers more than a year to prepare and ad apt. 
However, with regard to these standards, there is currently no testing laboratory designated by the 
Omani government. Also, there is a lack of implementation guidelines detailing the testing 
procedures. This situation leaves manufacturers incapable of  complying with the regulation. It is our 
understanding that at least 12 months are required for the Korean exporters to comply with the 
applicable standards, including 5 months for new product development, 3 months for testing, 
2 months for product regist ration, and 2 months for shipping and transportation. Korea requests a 
one-year postponement of the implementation from the point when sufficient number of testing 
laboratories are designated, and final versions of the guidelines and related documents on 
conducting tests have been published, allowing manufacturers adequate time to comply.  
2.413.   Second, in the previous letter, Korea communicated concerns regarding some ambiguous 
testing standards that it anticipated would pose difficulties in conducting tests. Re garding this 
matter, the Omani government has replied that they will provide clear instructions. However, as of 
present, we have yet to receive this information, so we would like to enquire once again. Specifically, 
regarding the testing voltage for washin g machines, while the Scope of OS 1651/2022 stipulates 
that the Energy Performance Test Standard shall apply to washing machines operating at 240V, 
Annex B of OS 1651/2022 stipulates that the washing machines must be tested at 230V, meaning 
that the values  are different even within the same standard. In addition, Annex B of OS 1653/2022, 
the Energy Performance Test Standard for refrigerating appliances, does not specify the temperature 
and humidity requirements necessary for calculating the energy consumpti on of anti -condensation 
heaters, making calculation impossible. Therefore, it is requested that these two aforementioned 
test criteria be clarified and appropriate amendments be provided in this regard. Lastly, Korea has 
not yet received any information re garding the seminar for stakeholders and relevant parties which 
 
115 For previous statements follow the thread under ID 673. G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 115 - 
 
  was mentioned in Oman's previous response. We kindly request details such as the date, location, 
and any additional information pertaining to this seminar.  
2.414.   In response, the representative of Oman provided the following statement. Implementation 
Timeline: We acknowledge the concerns regarding the implementation Timeline. However, it is 
essential to clarify that the standards were adapted in 2022, and only the timeline for implementation 
was anno unced in June 2023. This means that there has been more than a 12 -month transition 
period from date of adoption of the standards, providing manufacturers with ample time to adapt. 
The requirements being implemented align with standards already in place und er other recognized 
schemes, and we believe that manufacturers familiar with these globally recognized testing 
methodologies will find transition smoother. Registration Information: For the issuance of Energy 
Efficiency (EE) Label for these products, the r egistration will be carried out through the Omani EE 
Platform (Energy Efficiency Rating Labels for the Sultanate of Oman (gso.org.sa)). We have ensured 
that all procedures related the EE label is harmonized across various product categories, providing 
a consistent and streamlined experience for manufacturers and exporters. This harmonization is part 
of our commitment to simplify and standardize the process, making it easier for all stakeholders. 
3-Test Criteria Clarity: a -Voltage Discrepancy is OS 1651:2022 : it is common for International 
standards to allow a range or specific conditions for testing at different voltages. We will provide 
clear instructions on the applicable voltage for testing. b -Temperature and Humidity Requirements 
in OS 1653:2022: precise  temperature and humidity requirements are vital for accurate and 
consistent consumption calculations. We will review the existing guidelines and benchmarks, and 
ensure that clear and well -defined criteria are set, aligning with internationally recognized methods 
for energy performance testing of refrigerating appliances. c -Engagement with Stakeholders: We 
have plan for seminar to the relevant parties. In conclusion, we appreciate the active engagement 
and feedback from the Republic of Korea. Such collabora tion is vital in refining our standards to 
ensure they are both rigorous and globally aligned. Please do not hesitate to reach out for further 
questions or clarifications.  
 
  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 116 - 
 
  2.2  Exchange of Experiences  
2.2.1   Transparency  
2.2.1.1   Statements of Implementation under Article 1 5.2 
2.415.   The Chairperson  shifted the discussion to Item 2B(i) on Transparency, specifically addressing 
Statements of Implementation under Article 15.2. She reminded the Committee that Article 15.2 
obliges Members to inform about measures enacted to implement th e Agreement and to notify any 
alterations over time. It was pointed out that there were no new notifications under this Article at 
the moment.  She noted, however that 19 Members had not yet submit ted their statement of 
implementation as required by Article  15.2. Despite the Committee's generally robust record on 
transparency, the Chairperson acknowledged existing shortcomings in this area.  She also mentioned 
the ongoing efforts of the Transparency Working Group, which is acting on a recommendation from 
the Ninth Triennial Review to create a template for Article 15.2 notifications to be submitted through 
ePing. The Chairperson expressed optimism that the forthcoming online form and accompanying 
instructions would simplify the process of submitting initial or subsequent Article 15.2 notifications.  
2.2.1.2   Report on Transparency Working Group Meeting  
2.416.   The Chairperson  reported that the Transparency Working Group, established in March 2022, 
convened its fifth meeting on 3 October 2023. An annotated agenda to guide the discussions was 
circulated in advance as document JOB/TBT/513 . She proceeded to provide a concise report on the 
meeting's agenda items:  
a. Materials from the special meeting on transparency in June 2023, including her own report, 
were made accessible on a dedicated webpage. Given that this special meeting is biennial 
or triennial, she continued to invite feedback from delegations for planning future 
meetings.  
b. The Secretariat had updated the dedicated webpage  to track transparency -related 
materials and events relevant to the working group's activities. This webpage now features 
a comprehensive list of the 19 transparency -related recommendations  from the Ninth 
Triennial Review, noting any follow -up actions undertaken by the Secretariat and/or 
Members, as documented in a "live" document that delegations could utilize to monitor 
progress and as a reference for the  upcoming Tenth Triennial Review.  
c. Canada's suggested amendments to the notification guidelines, outlined in document 
JOB/TBT/485/Rev.1 , and Colombia's comments on this proposal, as recorded in document 
JOB/TBT/496 , were topics of discussion. Cana da had indicated ongoing discussions with 
Colombia to address their feedback. Additionally, the United States had made some 
drafting suggestions concerning item 6 of the guidelines. It was agreed to revisit a revised 
version of Canada's proposal in the Com mittee's November session. Meanwhile, Canada 
had submitted an updated proposal in JOB/TBT/485/Rev.2 , which the Committee would 
address shortly.  
d. An update on the initiative to facilitate Article 15.2 notifications through ePing was 
provided by the Secretariat. This project was based on preliminary inputs from the United 
States116 and Australia as well as deliberations within the working group. The plan involved 
sharing a mock -up for the ePing structure to gather Member comments, although this was  
postponed due to resource limitations. The working group agreed to address this matter 
in its subsequent meeting, while the Secretariat was asked to disseminate an outline of 
the draft structure.  
e. A new symbol series for Article 15.2 notifications was bein g introduced by the Secretariat 
to clearly identify these notifications by Member, designated as " G/TBT/15 .2/N/ISO 
country code of Member". This symbolization would be applied to future Article 15.2 
notifications.  
 
116 JOB/TBT/ 495 G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 117 - 
 
  f. The Chairperson conveyed that the working  group received an update on the collaborative 
effort by seven volunteer Enquiry Points to draft a guide on preparing comments on 
notifications. Speaking on behalf of the group , Australia announced their intent to present 
an initial draft to the working gr oup by the end of the year, integrate feedback, and share 
a second draft for comments in the new year. The objective was to complete the guide by 
the June 2024 Committee meeting. They also called for Members to contribute examples 
of effective outcomes fro m the commenting process to be featured as case studies in the 
guide.  
2.417.   In conclusion, the Chairperson invited Members to provide comments or questions on the 
discussed topics. She then moved to address the revision of the notification guidelines, referencin g 
Canada's revised proposal in JOB/TBT/485/Rev.2 , and invited Canada to introduce this document.  
2.418.   The representative of Canada  acknowledged Colombia, Singapore, and the United States for 
their engagement and suggested edits to Canada's proposal. After collaborating with  these Members 
following the October Transparency Working Group meeting, Canada had updated their proposal , as 
circulated by the Secretariat on 25 October in JOB/TBT/485/Rev.2 . This version, Canada noted, had 
no further comments and contained c hanges that were self -explanatory. Canada recommended 
integrating these revised guidelines into the compendium of notification format and guidelines in 
JOB/TBT/507 . They also thanked Members and the Secretariat for their support in completing this 
activity  from the Ninth Triennial Review.  
2.419.   The representative of the United Kingdom  voiced strong support for the proposal that 
enhance d transparency, a fundamental issue for the  Committee.  
2.420.   The representative of Australia  thanked Canada for their work on the propos al and 
highlight ed how the updated notification guidelines could aid those unfamiliar with the process and 
improve efficiency and publication quality. Australia mentioned their use of ePing's functionalities, 
such as providing drafting rights to other user s, which the new guidelines would further support.  
2.421.   The Chairperson , noting the general consensus, moved to adopt the revised guidelines. It 
was so decided .117 She thanked Canada and all Members for their cooperative efforts, which 
addressed a specific recommendation from the Ninth Triennial Review. She instructed the Secretariat 
to incorporate the revised guidelines into the compilation in JOB/TBT/507118 and also in ePing 's 
online submission  section. . She announced that she would coordinate with the Secretariat to 
schedule the next transparency working group meeting.  
2.2.1.3   Update by the Secretariat on ePing  
2.422.   The Secretariat  reminded the Committee that the Secretariat  had been tasked during the 
June meeting to clarify different user access levels on ePing. In response, the Secretariat had 
circulated G/TBT/GEN/363 , which included a table delineating user functions and access rights within 
the platform. The Secretariat we lcomed feedback on the document and  alsothanked delegations for 
participating in the ePing walk -in session  held earlier in the week. These sessions were very  
valuable for receiving feedback and further improving the platform.  
2.423.   The representative of Canada  thank ed the Secretariat for the document, originally suggested 
by Canada within the Transparency Working Group. Canada viewed the chart as a beneficial tool for 
understanding the various privile ges of different ePing accounts and for helping users maximize the 
platform's functions.  
2.2.2   Conformity Assessment Procedures (Guidelines)  
2.424.   The Chairperson  proceeded to discuss the development of the Guidelines for conformity 
assessment procedures, providing an  update on the progress. She reminded the Committee that the 
guidelines were initiated during the Eighth Triennial Review of the TBT Agreement to aid regulators 
in selecting and crafting conformity assessment procedures and that their finalization was agre ed 
upon in the Ninth Triennial Review. Since the regular meeting in June, the Chairperson conducted 
 
117 The revised guidelines were subsequently issued in G/TBT/52  on 15 November 2023.  
118 The updated  compilation was subsequently is sued in JOB/TBT/507/Rev.1  on 23 November 2023 . G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 118 - 
 
  consultations on July 7, September 21, and October 19, which were open to all Members. She 
expressed gratitude for the positive involvement from delegations  and noted good progress in 
reviewing and refining the draft text. Additionally, she indicated her plan to start smaller group 
discussions to tackle some of the more challenging issues, with the first of these consultations 
occurring alongside the last mon th's informal meeting.  The Chairperson also mentioned a dedicated 
webpage providing further details and the latest version of the working text for the guidelines. She 
acknowledged the ongoing work and considered that significant advancements were being mad e, 
encouraging all Members interested in the consultations to participate.  
2.2.3   Thematic sessions  
2.2.3.1   Reports by moderators  
2.425.   The Chairperson  noted that the Committee had held two thematic sessions on Tuesday, 
7 November: one session focused on the "Use of Digital Technologies and Tools in Good Regula tory 
Practices " and the second session on " Conformity Assessment and E -Commerce ". 
a. The Moderator119 for the Thematic session on the Use of Digital Technologies and Tools in 
Good Regulatory Practices , provided his report. The full report is contained in 
G/TBT/GEN/ 367.  
b. The Moderator120 for the Thematic session on Conformity Assessment and E -Commerce , 
provided h er report. The full report is contained in G/TBT/GEN/ 366.  
2.426.   The Committee took note  of the moderators' reports. The Chairperson  thanked both 
moderators for their contributions. For more information on these sessions, the Chairperson referred 
delegations to the TBT Gateway  where the full agenda and the presentations as well as the 
video -recordings were collected.  
2.2.3.2   Planning of next sessions  
2.427.   The Chairperson  noted that the Committee had completed 12 of 14 thematic sessions which 
were mandated by the Ninth Triennial Review.  The remaining two were:  i) conformity assessment 
(the key role of the NQI in Members' regulatory systems) and ii) standards (how Members 
incorporate international standards in their regulatory processes, inclusive of conformity 
assessment).  She noted that in 2024, following past practice during triennial review years, the 
regular sessions would normally be proceeded b y informal meetings focused on the Tenth Triennial 
Review. Still, there could be an opportunity, for example in March, to conduct one or two thematic 
sessions, especially if there were only a limited number of proposals under the Triennial Review.  
2.428.   The rep resentative of the United States  indicated that the possibility of such discussions 
would largely depend on the number of proposals expected for March. If there were many robust 
proposals, time might not permit a thematic discussion. However, with fewer pr oposals, there might 
be an opportunity. Given the  unpredictability , the representative of the United States suggested it 
would be prudent to allow flexibility in the agenda to accommodate discussion s rather than risk 
insufficient time for proposal consideration.  
2.429.   The Chairperson  found this to be a  sensible approach. With no ob jections, she decided to 
keep the planning open for the time being and also announced her intention to call an informal 
committee meeting early in the year  to reassess the situation .  
2.3  Other Matters  
2.3.1   10th Triennial Review  
2.430.   The Chairperson  shifted the discussi on to the Triennial Review process. She reminded the 
Committee that the Ninth Triennial Review was concluded in November 2021, as documented in 
G/TBT/46 , and noted that, in accordance with Article 15.4 of the TBT Agreement, the Tenth Triennial 
 
119 Mr. Diego Franco (Paraguay).  
120 Ms. Dora Trofor (United Kingdom) . G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 119 - 
 
  Review is due to be  concluded by November 2024.  Following established procedures, the first step 
in the Review was for the Committee to establish a timeline, which was agreed upon during the last 
TBT Committee meeting and detailed in G/TBT/W/775 . With one year remaining to co mplete this 
process, she emphasized that the Review will be propelled by substantive proposals from Members 
that pertain to specific areas of the Committee's work.  The Chairperson encouraged Members to 
submit their contributions as early as possible. Addit ionally, she announced the launch of a dedicated 
10th Triennial Review page  on the TBT Committee webpage, which includes the timeline and 
information on all previous Triennial Reviews as well as the current one, promising that this resource 
will continue to be updated.  
2.3.2   Better Functioning of the CTG and its Subsidiary Bodies  
2.431.   The Chairperson  referred back to the June meeting, where the Committee, guided by a 
Secretariat Note ( JOB/TBT/510 ), agreed to three specific actions to enhance the TBT Committee's 
functioning: 1) extending eAgenda to all agend a items on a trial basis, 2) regular briefings by the 
Secretariat, and 3) annotated agendas for informal meetings also on a trial basis.  Following this, the 
Secretariat expanded eAgenda to cover all agenda items starting with the November meeting. There 
were Secretariat briefing sessions held on September 19 and earlier in the week, concentrating on 
the Triennial Review Process. The first annotated agenda was shared prior to the informal meeting 
on 3 October  2023. The Chairperson noted that no further comme nts or inputs were provided by 
delegations at that informal meeting . 
2.432.   The Chairperson also reminded that all CTG subsidiary bodies had been  asked to report to 
the CTG before the first week of November on discussions held and improvements made since the 
conclusion of MC12. She disseminated a report under her own responsibility as Chair, initially shared 
with delegations as a draft on 10 October in JOB/TBT/515 , inviting comments by 24 October 2023. 
No comments were received, and the report was forwarded to the CTG in document G/L/1504  – 
G/TBT/51 . 
2.433.   The representative of Paraguay  thanked the Secretariat for the report and mentioned other 
good practices being incorporated into committee  practices , particularly praising the introduction of 
the new e -delegate system t hat would facilitate processes in countries like Paraguay, where 
workload and time constraints are significant. This system is expected to enhance control over 
delegation activities and streamline their work.  
2.434.   The representative of Australia  expressed grati tude for the Secretariat 's follow -up on the 
decisions from June, highlighting the usefulness of the annotated agendas for informal meetings. 
Regarding the expansion of eAgenda, Australia saw it as a positive step and encouraged members 
to utilize its funct ionalities fully. However, Australia raised a question about the content of the 
"previous meeting " tab in eAgenda, suggesting it could revert to including all statements from past 
meetings.  
2.435.   The Secretariat  acknowledged the query about eAgenda, mentioning t hat changes were 
made to align with the SPS approach and agreed to look into Australia's suggestion to potentially 
restore the "previous meeting" tab. 
2.436.   The European Union  acknowledged and thanked the Chair for her report to the Chairperson 
of the Council fo r Trade in Goods.  
2.437.   The Chairperson  noted that the United States had submitted a cross -Committee 
communication on the integration of developing countries into the SPS and TBT agreements 
(G/TBT/GEN/362 ) and invited the United States to speak on this commun ication.  
2.438.   The representative of the United States  elaborated on the thematic work initiated in the 
Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) Special Session, which is part of a broader dialogue. 
This dialogue aims to better operationalize existing flexibilit ies in key WTO agreements , such as the 
SPS and TBT, TRIPS, TRIMS, and ASCM. The focus is on areas, particularly in SPS and TBT, where 
these flexibilities are not fully utilized and to encourage the development of best practices led by 
developing countries.   G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 120 - 
 
  2.439.   In early November, the United States, in collaboration with the SPS and TBT Committees, 
disseminated a paper entitled "Highlights of Activities on Better Integration of Developing Countries 
in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade." This paper discusses several key points: (i) the challenges and 
opportunities associated with using digital tools like the ePing SPS&TBT platform; (ii) the role of a 
global network o f national SPS and TBT Enquiry Point offices in facilitating comments on notifications 
and providing responses to Member inquiries; and (iii) the strides developing countries are making 
towards implementing and operating competent Enquiry Points that are r esponsive to stakeholders, 
showcasing their progress in becoming leaders in TBT and SPS activities within their respective 
Committees.  
2.440.   The United States affirmed its commitment to working with WTO Members to introduce 
diverse and insightful perspectives in to the WTO's work. The representative of the United States  
expressed openness to further develop the initiatives begun at the CTD Special Session and invited 
everyone to review their paper. She looked forward to engaging with Members on ideas that build 
on their submission, aiming to foster productive discussions.  
2.441.   The Chairperson  thanked all delegations for their input and the Secretariat for promptly 
implementing the agreed actions. She encouraged delegations to  propose further improvements to 
the Committee's work, mentioning that the Tenth Triennial Review would be a suitable platform for 
such discussions.  
2.3.3   Any Other Matters Related to Implementation and Administration of the Agreement  
2.442.   The representative of the Russian Federation , addressing the Chair, referred to the current 
sub-agenda item. This item allows delegations to raise any matters related to the implementation 
and administration of the agreement. The representative sought clarification from the Chair on  
whether this was the appropriate place for Members to present reports about  relevant  activities in 
the field of technical regulation.  
2.443.   The Chair person  responded to the Russian Federation, stating that the decision to make such 
a report rests with each memb er. She invited the Russian Federation to proceed if they wished to 
make a report.  
2.444.   The representative of the Russian Federation  clarified that he did not intend to present a 
report but raised the question for the benefit of the membership and to avoid ambi guity in future 
meetings about where a WTO member can make such a report.  
2.445.   The Chairperson  said that it was up to each Member to decide when to make a report and 
sought confirm ation that the Russian Federation was not planning to make a report under this 
agenda item  and express ed her gratitude for the confirmation . 
3  TECHNICAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES  
3.1  Information from Members  
3.1.  The representative of the United States  informed Members that the Standards Alliance had 
been renewed for additional funding. The report was subsequently circulated in document 
G/TBT/ GEN/365. 
3.2  Information from Secretariat  
3.2.  The Secretariat  provided a report regarding its technical assistance activities. In the current 
year (2023) , ten in -person TBT national activities had been organized, four of which were joint TBT - 
SPS events. These events took place in the Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Peru, India, Nigeria, El 
Salvador, Morocco, Colombia, Keny a, and Bahrain. Additionally, one virtual national activity, a joint 
TBT-SPS, was conducted in Chile.  The Secretariat also mentioned that they would conduct a final 
national in -person activity in Guyana towards the end of November. Furthermore, the re would  be a 
Regional workshop ( TBT) for Asian countries in Manila, the Philippines.  Looking ahead to 2024, the 
Secretariat shared plans to organize a national in -person activity (joint TBT -SPS) in Namibia and a 
national virtual activity (ePing) for Ecuador. They  also indicated preliminary plans for a possible G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 121 - 
 
  regional TBT event for Latin America. The Secretariat would provide an update on the planned TBT 
activities for the next year in the first meeting of March 2024.  
3.3.  Regarding the upcoming Manila workshop, the S ecretariat briefed the Committee on the 
upcoming Manila workshop. This event, scheduled for the following week, was highlighted as an 
example of their activities: a regional workshop for Asian members of the WTO from developing 
countries. The workshop , it was noted, is set to include around 14 countries, including Bhutan, 
Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar,  Nepal, Sri Lanka, 
Chinese Taipei, Thailand, and Vietnam. It would  span two and a half days. On the fi rst day, the 
agenda involves setting the scene regarding current issues, technical regulations, standards, and 
similar topics. The second day focuses on more specific issues, such as transparency and the work 
of the committee. The workshop will have a them atic focus on environmental issues, examining 
environment -related topics that have been discussed in the TBT C ommittee.  For the final part of the 
workshop, external speakers will contribute, particularly focusing on standards and steel as an 
example of are as where TBT, regulations, and standards play a significant role. This Manila workshop 
exemplifies the type of event organized by the Secretariat and showcases the content and structure 
typical of such gatherings.  
3.4.  The Secre tariat recalled that a  detailed update on the objectives and outcomes of the pilot 
Transparency Champions initiative  had been  presented during the Committee's previous meeting  
held in June. As the pilot programme employed a notably different approach and pedagogy compared 
to the Secretaria t's other technical assistance activities. the ITTC 's Monitoring and Evaluation unit 
had undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of th e pilot initiative. The evaluation report found that 
the programme achieved significant positive results and did so in an ef ficient manner . The report  
also offered recommendations for enhancing the programme and suggested expanding it to other 
beneficiaries.  The Secretariat mentioned that they are currently contemplating the possible 
continuation of this programme. They also invited feedback and suggestions from Members to aid 
in this consideration.   
3.5.  The representative of the United States  asked if there could be a document generated that 
summarize d the Secretariat reports on technical assistance so that information could  be passed to 
US embassies – it would help them understand the TBT Secretariat 's training.  
3.6.  The Secretariat  responded positively.  
3.7.  The representative of Namibia  thanked the Secretariat for their work on the Transparency 
Champion Programme and supported the  continuation of this programme in support of other 
Members.  
4  OBSERVERS  
4.1  Updates from Observers   
4.1.  The representative of the African Organization for Standardization  (ARSO ) thanked the 
Chairperson and mentioned that a full update was available online. ARSO, which was admitted as 
an observer to the WTO -TBT Committee in November 2015, is an intergovernmental organization 
founded under the auspices of the Organization of Afric an Unity, now the African Union (AU), and 
the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa in 1977. Its mission is to facilitate the 
harmonization of standards and conformity assessments across Africa. ARSO, with 43 member 
states, continues to perform its  mandate through activities including:  
a. The harmonization of standards, with over 1,600 African standards harmonized across key 
priority areas, involving international standards harmonization with the input of African 
experts across 15 sectors, such as agri culture, pharmaceuticals, automotive, textiles, and 
leather industries, supported by 85 technical committees.  
b. In conformity assessment activities, they have harmonization and mutual recognition 
arrangements in place with six countries: Ghana, Kenya, Nigeri a, Rwanda, South Africa, 
and Zimbabwe. They also manage transparency and notification activities through the 
ARSO Documentation Information System.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 122 - 
 
  c. ARSO conducts capacity -building and awareness -raising in standardization activities, 
which includes organizi ng training workshops for African experts and Small and Medium -
sized Enterprises (SMEs), the A RSO Webinar series with 39 sessions since 2020, annual 
continental essay competitions  since 2013, now in its 11th edition, and the promotion of 
standardization an d trade policy instruments. This encompasses the African Quality Policy 
adopted by the AU in February 2023 and the African Continental Technical Regulat ory 
Framework, which is under consideration for the harmonization of technical regulations by 
the AU, al ong with the Gender Mainstreaming in Standardisation and Policy Document.  
4.2.  ARSO maintains cooperation with various international organizations, including ISO, IEC, WTO, 
ITC, and UNIDO, and appreciates the mutual cooperation with the WTO. This cooperation is  
instrumental in raising awareness in Africa about the challenges of Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) 
and the need for enhancing quality infrastructure. This includes collaboration in the Transparency 
Champions Initiative, aiming to improve transparency in standards harmonization processes within 
the framework of the African Continental Free Trade Area (A fCFTA) according to the WTO TBT 
Agreement and the AfCFTA Agreement, specifically TBT Annex 6, Article 11 on transparency.  The 
ARSO update was subsequentl y circulated in document G/TBT/G EN/36 8. 
4.3.  The representative of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe  (UNECE) informed the 
Chairperson that UNECE  had submitted an online report detailing their activities relevant to TBT 
members, which includes several links to pertinent information and is accessible to the committee 
members. The representative mentioned UNECE's recent collaborations with various WT O groups, 
expressing gratitude for the partnership, especially with the Informal Working Group on Trade and 
Gender and the Standards for Trade Development Facilities. They noted UNECE's support in 
launching Gender Action Plans. The representative announced  that UNECE would soon launch a new 
publication entitled "The Basics of Quality Infrastructure for Trade" , which was expected to be online 
before the end of the year. Furthermore, UNECE was revising Recommendation K on metrology 
assurance for conformity as sessment and testing, as well as Recommendation M, which focuses on 
the role of market surveillance in combating counterfeit products and conducting further studies on 
regulatory and procedural barriers to trade, notably for Turkmenistan.  
4.4.  The representativ e also reported that the UNECE Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and 
Standardization Policies (WP6) would hold its 33rd annual session from 23 to 24 Novemb er, including 
a conference on targeting continuous compliance. Flyers about the event had been distributed, and 
information was made available at the entrance. The TBT Chairperson was thanked for agreeing to 
provide a keynote speech to inaugurate the conference. The event aimed to address the conformity 
of products with embedded artificial intellige nce and other technologies, not only at the point of 
market entry but throughout their lifecycle, including after remote updates from outside the country. 
The representative invited Member States working on this topic to participate in the event and noted 
that while it was planned to be in -person, it would also be publicly accessible for streaming. 
Instructions for accessing the stream would be sent out by UNECE colleagues.  The UNECE update 
was subsequently circulated in document G/TBT/GEN/369 . 
4.5.  The repre sentative of the International Organization of Legal Metrology  (OIML) referenced a 
brief written report provided to the Secretariat, which contains detailed information and links to 
various documents available on their website. The representative highlight ed two items in particular: 
the welcoming of Montenegro as a new member state in September  and increasing OIML's total 
membership to 64 member states and 64 corresponding members. Additionally, the 58th meeting of 
the OIML International Committee of Legal Metrology was held in Chiang Mai, Thailand, emphasizing 
the importance of maintaining in -person contact, with 37 of the 64 member states present or 
represented. The representative also thanked Ukraine for sending two delegates to the committee 
meeting desp ite travel challenges and noted Ukraine's increasing engagement in OIML's technical 
work. Furthermore, during the meeting in Thailand, a proposal was put forward by the Kingdom of 
Thailand focusing on the development of OIML's work in countries with emergi ng metrology systems, 
guided by four principles. More details were available in the written report.  The OIML update was 
subsequently circulated in document G/TBT/GEN/3 70. 
4.6.  The representative of the World Health Organization  (WHO) recalled their statement from the 
June 2023 TBT Committee meeting regarding labelling measures for alcoholic beverages in WHO 
instruments. The representative then underscored two points concerning the relationship between 
alcohol consumption and hea lth risks, particularly cancer. Firstly, alcohol is classified as a Group 1 
carcinogen and is a risk factor for over 200 diseases. In 2019, alcohol consumption was attributable G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 123 - 
 
  to 2.6 million deaths and, in 2020, to more than 740,000 cancer cases. Secondly , the representative 
pointed out that despite the substantial health, social, and economic consequences of alcohol 
consumption, there is often an inaccurate public perception of its risks. They argued that labelling 
measures, such as health warning labels on alcoholic beverages, are recognized as effective in 
increasing consumer understanding and influencing behavio ur, citing evidence of their effectiveness, 
especially during pregnancy, and public support for health warnings on alcoholic beverages in the 
European Union. The representative concluded by emphasizing the importance of health warning 
labels and the need for coherence across the international system.  The WHO update was 
subsequently circulated in document G/TBT/GEN/3 71. 
4.7.   The representative of th e International Organization for Standardization (ISO)  reported on 
ISO's Annual Meeting 2023, which took place in Brisbane in September. The five-day event served 
as a platform to unite efforts to meet global needs, enhance collaboration, utilize technolog y, and 
prioritize sustainability. The event highlighted how international standards play a crucial role in 
building trust, facilitating trade, and accelerating progress toward an inclusive, sustainable, and 
digital future. Dedicated sessions were held on t opics such as trade and standards, global trade, the 
importance of accountability claims, and the future of hydrogen.  The representative noted that 
Mr. Erik Wijkström, the Head of the WTO TBT Section, participated in the 57th ISO Committee on 
Developing Co untry Matters (DEVCO) during that week and delivered a keynote speech.  
4.8.  The representative of ISO also drew delegations ' attention to a new publication entitled 
"Standards and Public Policy, a Toolkit for National Standards Bodies," developed under the ISO  
Standards and Public Policy Program.  The intended to work with the WTO TBT team to provide 
capacity -building support to national standards bodies and the WTO TBT National Inquiry Points. 
ISO, she said,  is also participating in discussions to develop an internationally legally binding 
instrument on plastic pollution and in the WTO Dia logue on Plastic Pollution. They mentioned a policy 
paper published by ISO to inform discussions on the role that international cooperation on standards 
can play in efforts to end plastic pollution. ISO's Committee on Conformity Assessment (CASCO) is 
actively working on applying the CASCO toolbox to the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) 
space.  
4.9.  The ISO representative also highlighted the creation of a competency framework for standards 
development professionals, a collaboration with the United Nati ons Development Programme (UNDP) 
on initiatives to enhance international standards for sustainability, and a research project entitled 
"Standards and Regulations" to guide policymakers on referencing international standards in national 
laws. Over the next year, ISO plans to conduct a pilot research project examining the societal 
impacts of standards in developing countries.  Finally , the representative mentioned ISO's presence 
at COP28 in Dubai, emphasizing the role of international standards in accelerating  credible climate 
action and supporting climate policy implementation. The ISO update was subsequently circulated 
in document G/TBT/GEN/3 72. 
4.10.   Further update had been provided by BIPM in G/TBT/GEN/373 . 
4.2  Pending requests  
4.11.   The Chairperson  drew Members' at tention to an updated list of observers, including pending 
requests  for observer status , contained in document G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.17 . In addition, document 
RD/TBT/1/Rev.9  provided an updated compilation of the original communications received by the 
WTO from the various bodies that had sought observer status in the TBT Committee and whose 
requests were still pending. Regarding pending requests, the Chairpe rson had no new information 
that would lead her to believe that the situation had changed from where the Committee stood at 
the last meeting.  
5  ANNUAL REPORT (2023) TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
5.1.  The Chairperson  noted that a  draft of its Annual Report to  the Council for Trade in Goods 
contained in JOB/TBT/ 516 had been  circulated on 10 October 2023. The report was adopted  and 
subsequently circulated in G/L/1518.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 124 - 
 
  6  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1  China on MC13 Declaration  
6.1.  The representative of China  thanked the Chairperson and provided an update on the outreach 
efforts regarding the TBT Ministerial Declaration. Since the introduction of the Declaration at the 
June meeting, China had contacted over 60 WTO members through their Geneva -based delegates, 
including discussions at the Senior Officials  Meeting the previous month. The feedback received was 
predominantly positive, with a common understanding of the importance of strengthening regulatory 
cooperation among Members. Many of the delegations had for warded China's proposal to their 
capitals for further consideration, which China greatly appreciated.  The representative took the 
opportunity to thank all interested members for their positive feedback and questions, with special 
thanks to those who have c onfirmed co -sponsorship or are actively considering it. This support and 
engagement are crucial for advancing the initiative.   
6.2.  During outreach, several common themes emerged in discussions. Some members had 
questioned the relationship between the TBT Minis terial Declaration and the existing work of the TBT 
Committee, particularly concerning the potential additional workload. The representative from China 
emphasized that the proposed declaration would not create new work streams for the TBT 
Committee but is intended to raise awareness among high -level policymakers about the importance 
of the Committee's work and available tools for regulatory cooperation within the TBT context. The 
substance of the work would remain the responsibility of the TBT Committee mem bers, who already 
have well -functioning procedures. The aim is to elevate political awareness without interfering with 
the Committee's work.  
6.3.  Additionally, there were inquiries about the added value and relevance of a TBT Ministerial 
Declaration, with some thinking there is no need for TBT work to be raised to the ministerial level. 
China argued that much of the work discussed in the Committee and thematic sessions is highly 
relevant to global challenges faced by all, including climate change, environmental protection, and 
sustainable development. The TBT Agreement is deemed relevant to these challenges, with effective 
implementation helping to address them even after nearly three decades. A ministerial declaration 
could reaffirm the Agreement's continued rel evance, making policymakers more aware of the TBT 
Committee's crucial role in bridging regulatory and standardization gaps.  
6.4.  China believes a ministerial declaration could broaden awareness and participation in TBT 
activities, especially for members lacking  the capacity to follow TBT Committee meetings, such as 
the Triennial Review. They stressed that the emerging challenges are common to all and the TBT 
Committee process has been inclusive. The goal is to build on the positive trends observed in recent 
years, such as increasing engagement on notifications.  
6.5.  Regarding the process leading to MC13, the representative stated that China views the process 
as bottom -up and is committed  to communicating with all members to build consensus for launching 
the initiative  on a multilateral basis. They reiterated the unique opportunity MC13 presents for a TBT 
Ministerial Declaration, which could boost stakeholder confidence in the WTO and motivate more 
member engagement in the Tenth Triennial Review of the TBT Agreement.  
6.6.  In conclusion, China continued to urge members to consider the relationship between emerging 
challenges and the TBT Agreement , seeking a forward -looking approach. With MC13 approaching, 
they encouraged members to reflect on the initiative and invited interes ted members to join as co -
sponsors.  
6.7.  The representative of  Singapore  thank ed China for its report  and the clarifications  made. Given 
the short runway to MC13, Singapore  encourage d China to continue its outreach efforts in an 
intensive manner. Singapore  remained supportive and continue d to see value in the initiative. 
Singapore congratulated China on the positive progress and was committed to continue working 
with China with a constructive spirit.  
6.8.  The representative of  the United Kingdom  thanked China for the update and expressed support 
for a TBT outcome at MC13 through a high -level TBT Declaration. The UK believes such a declaration 
could enhance the visibility of the Committee's significant work in fostering international 
collaboration and tack ling trade barriers. Despite the proximity of the MC13 conference, the UK G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 125 - 
 
  welcomed the chance to collaborate with China and other interested Members towards a constructive 
result.  
6.9.  The representative of the European Union  thanked China for the update on the  draft ministerial 
declaration aimed at strengthening regulatory cooperation to mitigate technical barriers to trade. 
The EU expressed its intention to collaborate with China and any other interested Member on refining 
the draft ministerial declaration int roduced by China in June. The EU emphasized the importance of 
allowing the TBT Committee to discuss the draft declaration to consider all Members' perspectives.  
6.10.   The representative of the United States  thanked China for its efforts towards an MC13 
ministeri al declaration. The US echoed sentiments from Singapore, the UK, and the EU regarding 
collaboration with Members to produce a successful document that could be endorsed by all.  
6.11.   The representative of Japan  appreciated China's update and initiative on the pr oposal, stating 
that practical proposals like this should be discussed among TBT Committee experts before being 
presented at a higher level. Japan sought to understand China's and other Members' views on the 
best way to discuss and advance this proposal.  
6.12.   The representative of Australia  thanked China for their update on the proposal and 
acknowledged their efforts in advancing this work. Australia remained open to constructive dialogue 
about the proposal and welcomed any chance to emphasize the significance o f the TBT Committee's 
work on new and emerging trade issues, such as sustainability and digital trade, to the wider WTO 
community. Australia recognized concerns about the declaration's purpose and its relation to the 
10th Triennial Review process, agreeing  that the proposal should remain principles -based and avoid 
imposing additional workloads on the Committee.  
6.13.   The representative of Canada  also appreciated China's update and further clarifications on 
feedback received regarding the proposed MC13 TBT Declara tion. Canada remained willing to engage 
with China and other interested Members on the subsequent steps.  
6.14.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked China for the update and the context provided 
about the declaration's intent, expressing willingness to engag e constructively in progressing the 
matter. New Zealand echoed the positive views of other Members on the value of the process.  
6.15.   The representative of Brazil  thanked China for the update. Brazil had discussed the issue 
informally with China on a few occasio ns and hoped to continue these discussions to move forward 
with the initiative.  
6.16.   The representative of the United States  sought clarification on the process moving forward, 
asking if there would be an update or if China planned to organize consultations on the next steps.  
6.17.   The representative of China  expressed appreciation for the support from Members and their 
willingness to discuss the matter in the future, indicating that China is open to further dialogue. On 
the question from the US and Japan , given the proximity of  MC13, the priority  for China  was to 
gather co -sponsors and communicate with the Secretariat and the Chairperson  to find a suitable 
way of moving the matter forward.  
6.2  Standards -related work of the WTO Secretariat for the upcoming UN climate 
conference, COP28  
6.18.   The Secretariat , represented by Deputy Director -General Jean -Marie Paugam, updated the 
Committee on  standards -related work of the WTO Secretariat for the upcoming UN climate 
conference, COP28. DDG Paugam's statement is contained in document G/TBT/GEN/364 . 
6.19.   The representative of the United Kingdom  highlighted  collaboration with Germany as co -leads 
of the Steel Breakthrough, aiming to support a coalition of leading international organizations in the 
development of the Steel Standards Principles, which will be launched at COP28. The UK anticipates 
that these principles will be a significant step in mobil izing stakeholders throughout the steel industry 
value chain to hasten the harmonization and interoperability of standards for near -zero emission 
steel. They looked forward to further dialogue across governments and the industry on such key 
cross-cutting i ssues.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 126 - 
 
  6.20.   The representative of Australia  reiterated their commitment to addressing the climate crisis 
and striving to keep 1.5 degrees of warming within reach. Australia is dedicated to international 
climate leadership and taking significant action on climat e both domestically and internationally. 
Enhancing collaboration with other countries toward rapid global decarbonization and climate 
adaptation is a key goal of Australia's engagement in the COP28 Action Agenda. Within the context 
of the Committee, Austra lia recognizes the pivotal role international standards can play in facilitating 
international collaboration on important areas, promoting harmonized and interoperable approaches 
that facilitate trade.  
6.21.   The representative of China  thanked the Deputy Directo r-General for sharing information on 
the Steel Standards Principles set to be introduced at COP28. China view ed the launch of these 
principles as inspiring for the TBT Committee's work and expressed a desire to closely monitor 
progress and maintain communi cation with members interested in this matter.  
6.22.   The representative of the United States  voiced concerns regarding the timing and nature of 
the briefings on joint statements between COP28 and the WTO on decarbonization principles for the 
iron and steel indus try. The US questioned the inclusiveness of the process and whether the TBT 
Committee was merely an afterthought, as they felt not sufficiently consulted but merely informed. 
The US stressed the importance of equal footing with other WTO Committees and req uested that 
WTO TBT Secretariat inform the Committee of climate change -related activities relevant to standards 
and technical regulations in a timely and regular manner, ensuring member -driven decision -making. 
They also requested that any WTO endorsements of principles should be clear that  it is WTO 
Secretariat work and is endorsed by Secretariat staff rather than on behalf of the Members.  
6.23.   The representative of the United States requested that the WTO TBT Secretariat inform the 
Committee of WTO climate change -related activities that are relevant to standards, conformity 
assessment, and technical regulations in a timely and regular manner. This should include 
intersessional communication to the committee on any WTO -wide proposals, allowing for mem ber 
input when comments can be effectively considered. The United States emphasized that the TBT 
Committee, as a regular and standing Committee of the WTO with established rules of procedure, 
deserves to have the same status as other WTO Committees and ad hoc groups, especially on issues 
directly pertinent to its work.  
6.24.   The United States called for any WTO briefings on climate change activities that involve the 
WTO TBT Agreement to be scheduled on the Committee's agenda in a timely manner , and not at the 
last minute to address in “other matters.”  
6.25.   While supporting the decarbonization of steel and iron as a legitimate climate change goal, 
the representative questioned the WTO’s approach on these joint principles as we understand the 
WTO will endorse them as an organization, along with private organizations. T he United States 
highlighted that WTO Members have not agreed to this statement of principles . This is a departure 
from a member -driven decision or outcome, and our stakeholders will be confused by it,  who m ight 
wrongly assume that the United States endorses a document it has not, given the WTO's nature as 
a consensus -based organization representing governments, not the private sector.  
6.26.   The representative also pointed out that when the WTO directly engages wit h private sector 
stakeholders from the United States, it disrupts the internal consultation process with the US trade 
advisory committee and government agencies, which is fundamental for creating consensus -based 
positions for the WTO TBT Committee. This pr actice was described as crucial for internal coordination 
and as a model of good regulatory practice.  
6.27.   The United States advocated for greater transparency, which they believe will lead to more 
substantial input and smoother acceptance of climate change out comes. They insisted that if WTO 
Secretariat staff wish ed to endorse a set of principles independently, it must be clear that such 
endorsements were personal opinions of the staff and did  not reflect the consensus position of the 
Members. The United States  requested that appropriate disclaimers be included in COP documents 
to clarify that these are not consensus positions of the Members.  
6.28.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chair and Deputy Director -General 
Paugam for the update. The EU expr essed support for initiatives aimed at accelerating the G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 127 - 
 
  decarbonization of sectors such as steel and welcomed collaboration on the definition of international 
standards within established international forums.  
6.29.   The representative of Paraguay  hadn't planned to speak since the topic was listed under "other 
business " and there hadn't been time to consult with their capital for a more informed statement. 
However, seizing the moment, they concurred with the United States on the point that the WTO is 
a member -driven organization. They highlighted a recent instance where they learned through the 
press about a Task Force on carbon pricing officially launched in the WTO, which reportedly took 
place in a private setting in London. As members of the WTO, they wanted to underscore this aspect.  
6.30.   The representative of Guatemala  thanked the Deputy Director -General for the information 
provided about COP28 and aligned with the United States' position. They emphasized the necessity 
of including a disclaimer clarifying that the d ocuments and positions outlined do not originate from 
the WTO Members but require a consensus among members for adoption.  
6.31.   The representative of India thanked Deputy Director -General Paugam for his update. Sharing 
some of the concerns raised in the meeting,  they requested that the WTO ensure that any standards, 
guidelines, or documents reflect that they do not represent Members' national positions , but are 
initiatives undertaken by the WTO Secretariat on its own responsibility.  
6.32.   The Secretariat , represented by Deputy Director -General Paugam , acknowledged the 
comments made by the Members. He clarified in response to the United States that the document 
in question does not represent a joint declaration with the UNFCCC or COP; it was merely present ed 
at COP, which is not an institutional partner in the matter. He also noted the observations regarding 
the consultation process and stated they would consider the feedback. He committed to 
communicating the text of the principle as an annex to his writte n report for the committee. 
Furthermore, he indicated that there would be more interaction with Members about the Secretariat 's 
engagement at COP in the next Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) meeting.   
6.33.   The representative of the United States  express ed support for the concept of principles but 
was concerned about the timing of the process, mentioning that it seemed rushed and that 
documents bearing the WTO logo alongside private sector logos had been seen by the US private 
sector before the government . This presented a procedural issue, as they would have preferred to 
be aware of the document or to have approved by the  Committee, which had not happened. The US 
emphasized the importance of transparency and involvement of the Committee in the initiative.  
6.34.   The Secretariat , represented by Deputy Director -General Paugam , took note of the questions 
raised . He pointed out that if private sector organizations were to endorse the document, it would , 
by definition,  not be a WTO document reflecting the membership 's consensus.  
6.35.   The representative of the United States  appreciated DDG Paugam 's responsiveness.  
6.3  Communication From Brazil - Enhancing Food Security through the Reform in 
Agriculture and the use of current flexibilities ( JOB/TBT/517 ) 
6.36.   The representative of Brazil  present a document entitled "Enhancing Food Security Through 
the Reform in Agriculture and the Use of Current Flexibilities," which had been circulated in the TBT 
committee as JOB/TBT/ 517. This paper was also submitted to va rious WTO bodies to draw the 
attention of TBT delegates.  Brazil clarified that the document was not intended as a modality or a 
substantive proposal but rather as a conceptual contribution to the discussions and negotiations in 
agriculture leading up to MC 13. With the pressing challenges of food security, Brazil 's stance is that 
agri-food production systems are heavily distorted due to subsidies and trade barriers, including 
technical barriers to trade, rather than being inherently broken. The document emph asized that 
reform in the agricultural sector, particularly regarding market access, is crucial.  
6.37.   Brazil pointed out that the food security landscape would improve without the extensive trade -
distorting domestic support and increasing barriers currently in place. The representative brought 
attention to discussions in the committee concerning measures like maximum residue levels (MRLs), 
which are more trade -restrictive than necessary, often not in line with international standards or 
scientific evidence, and negatively impact agricultural production, especially in developing countries.  G/TBT/M/91  
 
- 128 - 
 
  6.38.   Brazil  said that its approach to combating food insecurity relies on enhancing productivity and 
creating favorable conditions for small, medium -sized, and family farmers to enga ge in global 
markets. The document aims to contribute to the MC13 discussions by seeking improvements in the 
functioning of agricultural markets and mitigating the adverse effects of misguided agricultural 
policies. Brazil expressed the belief that reform,  including the elimination of unnecessary technical 
barriers to trade in agriculture, is vital for better global food distribution. The representative 
concluded by expressing hope that the paper would positively influence discussions towards MC13.  
6.39.   The repr esentative of Paraguay  thanked the Brazilian delegation for introducing the document 
entitled "Enhancing Food Security Through the Reform in Agriculture and the Use of Current 
Flexibilities," noting its importance in the context of agricultural negotiation s and related work within 
the WTO. They highlighted that out of the new issues addressed in the Committee's meeting, five 
were related to food security and market access, which are often hindered by technical barriers to 
trade. Paraguay appreciated Brazil' s role in bringing attention to specific trade concerns that impact 
the trade of food products.  
6.40.   The representative of Australia  thanked Brazil for the presentation of its submission, which 
emphasizes the complex and interconnected nature of food security i ssues across various WTO 
committees. Australia echoed the points made by Brazil, which are in line with the views of the 
Cairns Group members and Australia's long -standing position that food security can be achieved 
without heavy reliance on subsidies or o ther production and trade -distorting policies, including those 
within the scope of the TBT Agreement. The representative also mentioned the statement from 
Cairns Group members on the contribution of the multilateral trade system to sustainable and 
resilien t agriculture and food systems (G/AG/GEN/222 ), which aligns with Brazil's submission in 
highlighting concerns about the emergence of increasingly onerous, unilaterally -imposed import 
requirements affecting trade in agri -food products ostensibly on environ mental sustainability 
grounds. It highlights the importance of Members upholding WTO commitments by ensuring all trade 
measures are transparent and consistent with international standards where they exist, and/or are 
risk-, science - and evidence -based. Wit h MC13 approaching, Australia highlighted the potential for 
these discussions to contribute towards a more food -secure and sustainable future, urging members 
to engage with both documents.  
6.41.   The representative of the United States  thanked Brazil for the submission and indicated they 
would review it.  
6.42.   The representative of Uruguay  thanked Brazil for presenting it in the TBT Committee,  and in 
other committees. They agreed with the statements made by Paraguay and Australia, especially on 
the significance of addressing regulatory practices on agricultural and food products to enhance 
global food security.  
6.43.   The representative of Chile expressed gratitude towards Brazil for the document.  
6.44.   The representative of Brazil  appreciated the supporti ve comments and interventions regarding 
their document and expressed the hope to continue working with other Members leading up to MC13 
and negotiations in agriculture to achieve a positive outcome, including on food security. For Brazil, 
agriculture is in separable from food security, and they believe agriculture can contribute to the 
success of MC13. They looked forward to collaborative efforts with other members to achieve this 
goal. 
7  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
7.1.  The next regular meeting of the Committee will take place on  13-15 March 2024. It will be 
preceded by informal meetings on 12 March. The dates for all meetings in 2024 are contained in 
document JOB/TBT/500/Rev.1 , issued on 22  March  2023.  
__________