G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1  
 
26 March 2014  
(14-1901)  Page: 1/4  
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: English  
 
 THEMATIC SESSION ON STANDARDS 
18 MARCH 2014 
Chairman's Report 
Addendum 
This Report was delivered by the Chairman1 of the WTO TBT Committee at the meeting of 
19-20 March 2014. 
 
_______________ 
  
1.1.  At the Sixth Triennial Review, the Committee agreed to hold thematic sessions on standards 
in response to specific decisions and recommendations contained in past and present triennial review reports.
2 The first thematic session on standards took place on 5-6 March 2013.3 This 
second thematic session on standards was held on 18 March 2014, and addressed the topics of 
(i) standards and technical infrastructure; (ii) use of standards in technical regulations; and (iii) information on standards from other organizations. The final programme is annexed to this 
statement. The full presentations are available as Room Documents on WTO Documents Online 
(under "Documents for meetings").  
1.2.  The thematic session started with a presentation from Malaysia  on its experience with 
standards and conformity assessment infrastructure. It focused on the role that Standards 
Malaysia plays in the country's standards, quality management, accreditation, and metrology 
infrastructure (SQAM). It was noted that Standard s Malaysia opened up the functions of standards 
development in 2012 to other agencies beyond the traditional three bodies, while retaining SIRIM 
BERHAD's role as the notification and enquiry point. A new standards development process was 
instituted in January 2012 that further rationalized  the distribution of responsibilities between the 
standards development agencies, Standards Malaysia, the Ministry of Science, Technology & 
Innovation, and others. This process succeeded in reducing the time of adoption of international 
standards by three to five months, and in reducing the time required to develop domestic standards by over one year on average. More re cently, the government took steps to systematize 
the justification of government intervention when implementing regulations, and has also sought 
to promote better coordination among bodies invo lved in technical regulations, including the 
identification of "no man's land" areas where existing standards coverage may be insufficient.   
1.3.  We next heard from the representative of Peru, who described the history, current status, 
and future trajectory of the country's national plan for quality infrastructure. Despite Peru's 
impressive record of export-driven economic growth  over the past decade (with exports increasing 
565% over that period), it was recognized that such growth rates would only continue as the 
result of dedicated efforts to improve competitiveness and facilitate international trade through 
                                               
1 Mr. Jingo Kikukawa (Japan). This summary is pr ovided under the Chairman 's own responsibility. 
2 The latest decisions and recommendations on standards are contained in Section 3 of G/TBT/1/Rev.11.  
A Secretariat background note with an overview of the Committee's work on standards is contained in 
JOB/TBT/42 and Corr.1 (5 February 2013). 
3 The summary report of the last thematic sessio n on standards (5-6 March 2013) is contained in 
document G/TBT/GEN/144.  The March 2013 session considered the topics of (i) the Code of Good Practice; (ii) 
the use of the "Six Principles"; and (iii) transparency in standard-setting. G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1 
- 2 - 
 
  both macroeconomic and microeconomic measures. A careful assessment of Peru's national quality 
system (NQS) found that it was not sufficiently instit utionalized, that conflicts of interest persisted, 
and that economic growth had led to complacency in implementing constructive regulatory reforms. In response, the National Competitiveness Council in 2010 created a competitiveness 
agenda that focused on generating demand for quality products (“pull”), generating supply of 
quality tools (“push”), and a new legal framewor k for the NQS (“coordination”). By 2016, Peru 
hopes to have 4600 Peruvian standards, 130 technical committees, and 48 committees in ISO. 
1.4.  Next, moving to the usage of standards in technical regulations, the representative of the 
European Union  emphasized that while standards are a form of "self-regulation" they are not in 
and of themselves regulation. She underlined the basic distinction between regulation (mandatory) 
and standards (voluntary) and stressed that the EU's "New Approach" refers to standards by 
indirect reference, which therefore remain of voluntary application. In other words, the EU avoids 
direct references to standards as this can stifle innovation by mandating compliance with the technological specifications set out in a standard and thereby preventing compliance by other 
(perhaps better) means. Thus, in practice, a dire ct reference could have the perverse result of 
necessitating the revision of legislation every time  a standard was revised. So the objective of the 
EU approach was to remove unnecessary barriers to trade through the sharing of tasks: legislation 
specifies essential product requirements (health, safety and environment) in terms of performance 
while standards support legislation giving one – or  more ways - of meeting that policy objective 
(as expressed in the essential requirements). Th e EU expert underscored the importance of the 
EU’s “one product, one standard” approach , and described the 2014 Annual Union Work 
Programme for Standardisation as an opportunity for the European Commission to submit non-
binding requests to European standards bodies for the development of certain product standards. In terms of the financing of standardization activities, it was noted that in the EU, industry bares 
93-95% of the cost of standards development, wi th national governments (3-5%) and the EU (2-
3%) covering the remainder. 
1.5.  The representative of the United States  said that US agencies rely on private sector 
voluntary standards to meet regulatory needs
4 and that this basic guidance is set out in the US 
Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circul ar A-119. This Circular was currently being 
updated: together with the USTR and the National  Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) a 
comprehensive proposal to update Circular A- 119 had been published for comment. The revised 
Circular would maintain a strong preference for using voluntary consensus standards in Federal 
regulation and procurement – but would also ackn owledge that there are standards not developed 
using a consensus-driven process that are in use in the market—particularly in the information 
technology space—and that may be relevant (and necessary) in meeting agency missions and 
priorities. Additionally, in this work, the US had sought among other things: to provide guidance to 
agencies on international trade obligations with respect to their use of standards; to provide 
guidance to federal agencies’ participation in standards development; to encourage consideration 
of international and private sector conformity assessment schemes; and, to balance transparency 
with respect for copyright protections. Importantly, the revised Circular would also encourage agencies to consider international  conformity assessment schemes and private sector conformity 
assessment activities in lieu of conformity assessment activities or schemes developed or carried 
out by the government. The United States noted that comments were welcome on the proposed revision of OMB A-119.
5 
1.6.  We then heard two presentation s from observers in the TBT Committee – UNCTAD  and the 
ITC – on their efforts to promote greater aw areness of, and engagement with, voluntary 
sustainability standards (VSS). Th e representative of UNCTAD provided an update on the work 
program of the UN Forum on Sustainability Standards. He stressed that the challenges  created by 
VSS could not be solved through trade policy alone; a strong government  commitment  and the 
building of technical and institutional  capacity were, among other things, essential.  Also, the political 
will to address specific problems  – rather than just raise general objections  – required a realistic and 
informed  assessment  of the situation.  A proactive  approach  could enable developing  countries  not 
only to minimize the potential costs associated  with adjustment  to VSS, but also to maximize  the 
                                               
4 It was noted that, in some sectors, voluntary co nsensus standards are developed in intergovernmental 
bodies, such as Co dex and UNECE WP29. 
5 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2 014/02/11/2014-02891/request-for-comments-on-a-
proposed-revision-of-omb-circular-no -a-119-federal-participation-in-the   G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1 
- 3 - 
 
  related economic,  social and environmental  benefits.6  The ITC presented the most recent iteration 
of its online “standards map”, an interactive portal providing information and comparability across 
private standards as well as national specific sustainability standards (such as USDA or EU organic 
standards). The map consolidated the more than 130 VSS in existence, and included over 700 different criteria in the database. The ITC saw the Standards Map as a tool for better linking sustainable product supply with demand, and ultimately advancing both the market and the field 
of standards. 
1.7.  On a personal note  I found the event to be both comprehensive and informative, and also 
useful in terms of building a mutual understanding between Members on what is clearly a very 
complex topic. I would particularly note the close relationship between standards, on the one 
hand, and regulatory activities on the other. Cl early, governments have different approaches to 
this – and sometimes the terminology is different, even confusing! But one thing that came across 
loud and clear is the importance of distinguishing  between the activity of setting standards and the 
activity of regulating. The former (standard-sett ing) can be done by many different types of 
bodies, including private. Regulating, however, is the domain of governments: governments set policy, not standardizing bodies. Moreover, this is a complementary relationship because policy-
makers can draw on standards as a basis for regula tion. This type of discussion, I believe, should 
help appropriate coordination between standards bodies and regulators.  
 
 
                                               
6 More information, including discussion papers, figure on the UNFSS website at www.unfss.org . The full 
statement made is available as a "Room Document" on the Members website. G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1 
- 4 - 
 
   
ANNEX 
PRESENTATIONS 
The following presentations were made during the Thematic Session: 
 
a. Standards and Technical Infrastructure 
i. Malaysia : Standards and conformance infrastructure: Malaysia’s experience (Ms Siti 
Mariam Mohd Din)  
ii. Peru: Peru's national plan for qualit y infrastructure (Mr Augusto Mello) 
b. Use of standards in technical regulations  
i. European Union : Referencing Standards in Regulation (Ms Silvia Vaccaro) 
ii. United States : Revision of OMB Circular A-119 (Ms Julia Doherty) 
c. Information on standards from other organizations 
i. UNCTAD: Update on developments in the UNFSS  (Mr Ulrich Hoffmann) 
ii. ITC: The "ITC Standards Map" (Mr Joseph Wozniak, Mr Mathieu Lamolle)  
 
__________