RESTRICTED  
  
G/TBT/M/74  
 
 
22 May 2018  
(18-3001) Page: 1/49 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 21-22 MARCH  2018 
CHAIR MAN: MR JOSE MANUEL CAMPO S (CHILE)  
Note by the Secretariat1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2   IMPLEMENTATION AND A DMINISTRATION OF THE  AGREEMENT  ................................ . 1 
2.1   Statements from Members under Article 15.2  ................................ ................................ . 1 
2.2   Standardization Law of the People's Republic of China  ................................ ......................  2 
2.3   Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
2.3.1    Reported resolutions  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 
2.3.2    Withdrawn concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
2.3.3    New concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  3 
2.3.4    Previously raised concerns  ................................ ................................ ........................ 10 
2.4   Exchange of Experiences  ................................ ................................ ............................. 44 
2.4.1    Eighth Triennial Review – Chairman’s report (JOB/TBT/240/Rev.2)  ................................ 44 
2.4.2    Other matters  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 44 
3   THE 23RD ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE  IMPLEMENTATION AND O PERATION OF 
THE TBT AGREEMENT (ARTICLE 1 5.3) ................................ ................................ ............  47 
4   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  ACTIVITIES  ................................ ................................ ....... 47 
5   UPDATING BY OBSERVER S ................................ ................................ ........................  48 
5.1   Updates  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 48 
5.2   Pending Requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......48 
6   DATE OF NEXT MEETING ................................ ................................ ............................  49 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA  
The Committee  adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/ 10. 1.1.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION AND A DMINISTRATION OF THE  AGREEMENT  
2.1  Statements from Members under Article 15.2  
2.1.  The Chairman  reminded the Committee of Members' notification obligation under Article  15.2 
of the TBT Agreement and further informed the Committee that the latest list of statements on 
                                                
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/74  
 
- 2 - 
 
  implementation submitted un der this provision was contained in an annex to the Annual Review of 
the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/ 40), issued on 12 March  2018. 
Information on the list of statements is available on the TBT Information Management System  
(TBT IMS ). 
2.2  Standardization Law of the People's Republic of China  
2.2.  The representative of China  introduced the newly revised Standardization Law of the People 's 
Republic of China. She said that the Law had been  officially en acted on 4 November 2017 and had 
come into force on 1 January 2018. The draft law ha d been published online to solicit opinions not 
only from within the country but also from overseas . This had been done three times : in March 
2016, May 2017 and in September 2017.  The Law was divided into six chapters containing forty -
five articles in total.  
2.3.  Regarding the major changes, the law expand ed the scope of standards. Previously 
applicable to "industry " standards only, the scope of standards had now been  expanded to cover 
the "technical requirements " to be harmonized in the fields of agriculture, industry, services, so cial 
undertakings, etc. " Second, the law encourage d active international participation. For the first 
time, the Law encourage d enterprises, so cial organizations, educational institutions, research 
institutes and other organizations to participate in international standardization activities. The law 
also promote d the application and popularization of international standards in China.  
2.4.  Third, the law strengthen ed and  unified  the management of mandatory standards. The 
mandatory standard had been streamlined to achieve "one market, one  bottom line, one 
standard". It  clearly remove d mandatory sector standards and mandatory local standards, and left 
only mandatory national standards. At the same time, the Law adopt ed the terms of WTO/TBT 
Agreement relating to technical regulation, for instance: the scope of mandatory national 
standards were strictly limited to "address technical requirements for ensurin g people 's health and 
the security of their lives and property, safeguarding national and eco -environmental security, and 
meeting the basic need of economic and social management ". Also, the Law stipulate d that the 
development of mandatory national standar ds had to  be open and transparent while adequate 
notifications needed to  be made to the WTO according to rele vant rules. Fourth, the law introduce d 
new requirements for standards development. The Law stipulate d that during the proposal 
approval stage, inve stigations into the actual needs had to be  carried out . During the standards 
development process, in -depth investigation and demonstration would  be carried out and the 
process had to be open and transparent . After the release of standards, mechanisms were 
established for feedback, evaluation and review on the implementation of standards  
2.5.  Since the  promulgation of the new Standardization Law, China was actively studying the 
revision of the relevant laws and regulations. For example, China had released the Guiding 
Opinions for Foreign Invested Enterprises Participation in Standardization Work in China. This was 
done to promote the equal participation of foreign i nvested companies. This would mean, for 
instance, that participating subjects, joint ventures, co operative enterprises and foreign invested 
companies legally created in China, would enjoy equal rights as domestic enterprises in the 
national standardization work . In terms of scope  of participation , the regulation clearly prescribe d 
that foreign investe d companies would  take part in the drafting and translating of national 
standards, and propose advice and suggestions during the stages of proposal approval, feedback 
solicitatio n and standards implementation. I n addition, China had already translated and published 
the English version of the new standardization law ; the French, German and other foreign 
language versions of the law would  be published soon.  
2.6.  The representative of the United States  thanked China for the presentation on the 
standardization law.  For the  United States it was a very important piece of implementation of the 
TBT A greement and the US had made many comments on the L aw. The US appreciated that the 
comments had been taken into account.  
 G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3  Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  
2.3.1   Reported resolution s 
There were no reported resolutions.  2.7.  
2.3.2   Withdrawn concerns  
The Chairman reported that the following STC s had been withdrawn from the agenda at the 2.8.  
request of the concerned Member:  
a. China — Internet of Vehicles Cybersecu rity Protection Guideline Rules  
b. China — Civil Aviation Network Information Security Management Rules  
2.3.3   New concerns  
2.3.3.1   China — Chinese Environmental protection control standards for imported solid 
waste as raw materials  
The representative of the European Union  raised concerns regarding the Chinese 2.9.  
environmental protection control standards for imported solid waste as raw materials. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/472 . 
The representative of the United States  raised concerns regarding th e Chinese 2.10.   
environmental protection control standards for imported solid waste as raw materials. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/468 . 
The representative of Australia  expressed appreciation for China 's efforts to reduce pollution 2.11.   
through a broad range of measures in the economy. Australia nevertheless had a number of 
concerns about China 's revised standards for certain waste and scrap imports and supported the 
comments raised by other Members. T he standards would have a significant impact on Australian 
exporters, and might cause a large amount of waste to go to landfill, instead of being recycled in 
China and recovered for intermediate materials. What were the specific public health, animal or 
plant, and environmental protection objectives and how were they fulfilled by the measure?  
Australia raised questions on: (i) how the contaminant levels had been set, requesting  2.12.   
further information about the technical and scientific analysis under pinning th e standards; and 
(ii) whether the measure was more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired 
objectives. Australia was also concerned about compliance with the Code of Good Practice for the 
Preparation, Adoption, and Application of Standards in Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement. Neither the 
Ministry of Environmental Protection (ME P) nor SAC provided for a sixty -day comment period on 
the draft standards in either the domestic consultation process or the notification to the WTO, 
according to Article L of the Code. Australia would also be grateful for an explanation on how 
comments from other Members had been taken into account given the consultation process was 
closed and clarification on what regulations or standards were applied to China 's domestic waste 
products, and how such standards were enforced. Were the domestic waste standards the same as 
foreign waste? If not, why not? Finally, Australia urged China to reconsider the standards and 
allow for a comprehensive consultation process.  
The represent ative of Japan  expressed appreciation for China 's replies to the comments and 2.13.   
questions submitted to China 's TBT Enquiry Point and relevant ministries to clarify the scope of the 
regulation. However, it was  suggested that China reconsider the regulation, as Japan could still see 
difference s between standards applied to Chinese domestic waste products and to imported 
products.  Japan once again requested China to grant equal treatment to both Chinese domestic 
products and imported products.  
Concerning recove red paper and paperboard, Japan asked  China to inform whether it 2.14.   
intended to revise the Waste Paper Recycled Requirements (GB/T20811 -2006) which was applied 
to Chinese domestic products and about the timeline of its revision. Furthermore, Japan was 
concern ed about the impact the implementation of this regulation would have on other solid G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 4 - 
 
  wastes. Since this regulation would have a huge impact on trade, her delegation asked China to 
share any further updates of the catalogue and to provide enough time to comm ent and a 
transitional period.  
The representative of Canada  thanked China for the presentation on the new standard 2.15.   
system and underlined its usefulness. Canada recognized China 's desire to address environmental 
concerns related to trade in recyclable produ cts. Canada had exported to China a wide range of 
recyclable materials for use in industrial processes in the pas t few years such as paper mills and  
metal smelters. The delegation understood the role that such imports could play in the domestic 
economy as well as the importance of environmentally sound management of these materials. As 
also noted in its written comments on these measures, Canada would appreciate clarification on a 
number of aspects to ensure that the extensive trade in these goods could  continue in a 
predictable way and not be overly burdensome for Chinese importers and Canadian exporters. In 
particular, Canada sought further detailed information on the methodology used by China to 
determine the allowable levels of "carried waste ". Canada no ted that the levels established by 
China were not in line with specifications commonly applied in the trade of these materials, as put 
forward by associations such as the Bureau International de Recuperation. Furthermore, Canada 
requested further informati on on how China planned to apply these standards in practice, including 
with respect to testing methodologies and the precise definition of "carried waste ".  
Canada recalled that in past statements, China had referred to a desire to completely 2.16.   
eliminate th e import of foreign waste and encouraged China to describe its intentions to regulate in 
this area and provide as much notice as possible for any future measures. The trade in recyclable 
materials between Canada and China was mutually beneficial: Canada wa s not able to process 
many of these materials as efficiently as China, and Canadian sources supplied valuable raw 
materials for Chinese companies. Import restriction s on those materials to China might increase 
prices and negatively impact the competitivene ss of the Chinese processors. Canada encouraged 
China to consider all possible mechanisms which would not disrupt this lucrative trade.  
The representative of China  explained that since the 18th National Congress of the 2.17.   
Communist Party of China (CPC), the C PC Central Committee, with Xi Jinping at its core, had been 
pushing for ecological progress and pro -actively practising the values of "sustainable development" 
and "green development"  in order  to meet the Chinese people's  over-growing  need for a beautiful 
eco-environment, a iming  to resolve significant outstanding environmental problems. Advancing the 
reform of the solid waste import administration regime is one of the most important steps that the 
Chinese government has taken to implement the New Developmen t Ideas, safeguard the eco -
environment safety and population health. The representative further said that solid waste 
treatment and disposal was a shared environmental issue faced by all Members around the world. 
In accordance with the internationally reco gnized principles of "waste generator responsibility" and 
"disposal to the nearest", each Member had the obligation to dispose  of domestically generated 
solid wastes. China, as a developing Member with the largest population, must make the inevitable 
choice of restricting and prohibiting imports of solid waste, whilst improving domestic solid waste 
treatment and disposal. While China still welcomed the normal trade flow of raw materials 
processed from solid waste, the import of solid waste would be controll ed and regulated to 
safeguard eco -environment safety and population health.  
Currently, China was seeking a path towards modernization that ensured the harmonious 2.18.   
co-existence of humans and nature. To that aim and with the objective of building  a beautiful 
China, she said that China would continue to pro -actively practi ce the values of "sustainable 
development" and "green development", to unswervingly advance the reform of the solid waste 
import administration regime, and push forward the ecological reform. In the process of adjusting 
relevant policies, the Chinese government would take into full consideration  the calls from the 
domestic and international communities, coordinate economic growth and environmental 
protection, balance trade and non -trade interes ts, safeguard a smooth policy transition, and fulfil 
the applicable transparency obligation under the WTO. She added that over past decades, 
companies from many other WTO Members had exported huge volumes of solid waste to China 
and obtained enormous econo mic benefits. China expressed hope that these Members could 
actively shoulder their international social responsibility while taking these advantages, and make 
due contribution to the improvement of environmental and health issues worldwide. China believed  
that the most important thing for now was that all Members – not only China, but also the rest of 
the world - should follow the letter s and spirit of the Basel Convention, reduce, process, and 
recycle hazardous wastes and other wastes produced within thei r own territory. With this G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 5 - 
 
  consensus and subject to this condition, her delegation believed, many problems could be better 
solved and mutual understanding could be developed. It would also contribute to the global 
promotion of a green, low -carbon and recyc ling development mode, and the creation of a clean, 
beautiful world.  
2.3.3.2   Israel — Addendum to the Pharmacist Regulations (Cosmetics 5778 -2018) 
G/TBT/N/ISR/709/Add.2  
The representative of the European Union  expressed concerns on the "Addendum to the 2.19.   
Pharmacist Regulations " . The full statement is contained in document G/TBT/W/ 473. 
The representative of the United States  thanked Israel for agreeing to delay the review of 2.20.   
the final version of the Pharmacis t Regulation in order to  consult with industry.  While appreciating 
the efforts of Israel to align its cosmetics regulations with international best practices by 
introducing a transition to a notification system, there were c oncerns that the current draft 
regulation might inadvertently cause trade barriers. US industry had submitted comments on the 
first draft proposed in 2013 and again last year, noting that the current requirements of the draft 
might result in market entry delays for US products. Israel 's requirement that the Responsible 
Person (RP) should be an individual and not a business entity was neither in line with international 
best practices in investment policy nor would be realistic to implement since no one individual 
could be responsible for s ometimes thousands of individual products that would need to be 
managed.  
Additionally, the US understood that Israel required the Product Information Files (PIF) to 2.21.   
be kept at the address on the product label and asked for clarification whether this would require 
the PIF to be kept in Israel or at the site of a foreign manufacturer. If the former , then this 
requirement, along with the requirement that the PIF should be made available to authorities at 
any time, rather than within 72 hours of a re quest of an  authority, put the Confidential B usiness 
Information (CBI) of US companies at risk.  Businesses did not typically share all of the information 
the PIF must contain, such as their product test data , rather only the relevant sections as ne eded 
to address hea lth authorities'  requests.  Similarly, while industry applauded holding parallel 
importers to the same standards as manufacturers by requiring them to designate an RP to 
facilitate the market authorization of their products, the fact that the RP of the asso ciated cosmetic 
product must provide the PIF upon request from the authority was , in her delegation's view,  an 
undue burden on the primary importer and put  manufacture rs' CBI at risk.  
Further, the she asked whether Israel would consider the US industry's r equest to accept 2.22.   
self-certification of GMP compliance. Industry also requested to permit providing drawings of 
product packaging rather than a photo or photocopy, because the final package design was not 
always ready at the time of notification.  Industry f urther requested Israel to align with other 
markets that typically treat ed nano-material no different ly from other forms of the same material.  
In doing so,  Israel would avoid imposing a six -month waiting period specific to products contain ing 
nano-materials.  The US asked Israel, following the March workshop, to review and address the 
comments that industry had provided to the TBT Enquiry Point and during the workshop. She also 
requested Israel to re -notify the final draft given the extensive nature of the comments and the 
potential trade barriers and to provide a two -year transition period to adapt to the new measures 
once the regulation entered into force. She stressed that the US had exported over US$65 million 
in cosmetic  products to Israel in 201 6 and would appreciate cooperation in ensuring the trade was 
not interrupted.  
The representative of Israel . She explained that the process to align Israel 's cosmetics 2.23.   
regulations with international best practice had started in 2013. In this respect, the re gulations 
would signify a move from a pre - to a post -market control system to guarantee immediate access 
to Israel 's market. It was noted that following the initial text notified in October 2013 
(G/TBT/N/ISR/709), Israel had notified on 7 June 2017 and 23 January 2018 amendments to the 
regulations. The amendments had been made as a result of extensive consultation and 
commentary processes. She further added that the regulation aimed to improve the safety and 
quality of the cosmetics market in Israel and ope n it up to more competition. This was part of a 
broader effort to lower barriers for imports into the Israeli market and to improve the quality and 
prices of all goods for the consumer 's benefit. As the process involved harmonizing the new 
regulations with  those of its major trading partners, the Israeli Government appreciated and took 
into consideration contributions and experience -sharing of industry and trading partners in G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 6 - 
 
  formulating the regulations suitable for the Israeli environment. The Israeli dele gation took note of 
the issues raised in th e Committee. Members were familiar with and had been actively involved in 
the process of developing the regulations. The discussions had been extended and were ongoing in 
the Israeli Parliament. She further encour aged concerned Members to continue contributing to 
deliberations through all channels. She also added that the period of implementation would be at 
least one year to allow industry to adapt to the new regulation. However, the date of the final 
implementati on had not been determined as the process to finalize the regulations was still 
ongoing.  
2.3.3.3   European Union — Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable 
Energy Directive  
The representative of Malaysia  raised concerns about the discriminatory treatment against 2.24.   
biofuels and bioliquids produced from palm oil under the proposed amendments of the Directive of 
the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable 
Sources adopted on 17 January 2018 by the European Parl iament. She noted  that the use of 
biofuels from palm oil would not be counted towards the EU's renewable energy targets from 2021 
as compared to biofuels from other competing raw materials such as rapeseed oil which would be 
allowed until 2030. This, she m aintained,  would harm market access of palm -based biofuels to the 
EU and negatively impact the reputation of palm oil. Her delegation was concerned that the  
proposed amendments appeared to disregard  the fact that the ambitious renewable targets by the 
EU could not be achieved without the contribution of biofuels from palm oil. Palm oil was the most 
productive and efficient oil crop, only requiring one fifth of the land area required for rapeseed 
cultivation to produce a similar volume o f palm oil. This mini mized land -use change  and reduced 
potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land conversion. Malaysia understood that the 
amendments were still being debated at the Trilogue negotiations in Brussels but was of the view 
that several amendments, particul arly the provisions affecting biofuels produced from palm oil , 
would both constitute a breach of the EU 's commitments under the TBT Agreement and affect 
palm oil producing countries including Malaysia, if implemented in their current form.  
The proposed Amendment 307 of the adopted text specifically singled out palm oil by 2.25.   
indicating that ''the contribution from biofuels and bioliquids pr oduced from palm oil shall be 0 % 
from 2021.'' Malaysia believed that t he move to phase out the use of palm  oil as a component of 
biofuels might constitute a violation of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreem ent based on the following: 
(i) palm oil -based biofuels and other types of biofuels produced in the EU were "like products " as 
they were used as a substitutable so urce of renewable energy and were in a competitive 
relationship; (ii) although the sustainability criteria applied to all vegetable oils that drove 
deforestation regardless of their origin, at least one of the sustainability criteria i.e. the 2021 
target f or palm oil, appeared to de facto discriminate against palm oil -based biofuels and cre ate an 
advantage for other crop -based biofuels, particularly EU -produced biofuels; and (iii) the intended 
amendment would discriminate palm oil by singling out palm oil cultivation as the largest 
contributor to deforestation. Such a move was deemed protectionist in nature and unjustifiable , 
undermining the principle s of the multilateral trading system. Malaysia welcomed clarity on how 
such intended measures would be consis tent with the TBT Agreement.  
Malaysia was among several other M embers to be most likely affected by the proposed 2.26.   
measures. Her delegation urged the EU to notify the measures to the TBT Committee swiftly in 
accordance  with Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement. Receiving more information on the draft 
measures at an early stage before they were finalized and adopted would give the opportunity for 
Malaysia and other Members to comment.  Moreover, as a major exporter of palm oil pro ducts to 
the EU, Malaysia continued to have concerns over EU 's increasingly restrictive measures on palm 
oil. The amendments, if implemented in their draft form, would have negative repercussion s on 
the palm oil industry of developing countries and did not  reflect the stated commitment by the EU 
towards meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely the objective of addressing 
poverty and raising the income levels of farmers.  
It was noted that the proposed amendments also failed to recognize the positive impact of 2.27.   
the Malaysian oil palm industry in enhancing the livelihood and the living standard of the 650,000 
smallholders and the socio -economic development of the country through the export earnings from 
the industry. The measure would negatively  impact and deny those who were dependent upon the 
oil palm industry to lift from poverty. Also, the proposed amendments disregarded the initiatives 
by Malaysia in the efforts and measures implemented in forest and biodiversity conservation as G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 7 - 
 
  well as the international pledges by Malaysia in the context of forest and tree covered conservation 
and reduction of GHG emissions. Malaysia had pledged under the Nationally Determined 
Contribution (NDC) of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Conve ntion on 
Climate Change (UNFCCC) to reduce its GHG emissions intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 relative 
to the emissions intensity of GDP in 2005.  
The delegation of Malaysia further explained that palm oil was produced sustainably and the 2.28.   
oil palm industry w as committed to producing palm oil in accordance with sustainable principles 
and criteria under the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO), which would be implemented on a 
mandatory basis by 31 December 2019. The proposed amendments undermined the efforts c arried 
out by Malaysia to ensure the sustainable perspective of the Malaysian oil palm industry. Malaysia 
requested that the EU consider providing equi table treatment across all crop -based biofuels, 
including palm -based biofuels. Malaysia would continue to  monitor the development of the 
intended amendments of the EU RED and looked forward to the EU's response.  
The representative of Thailand  said that the adoption of amendments might affect the future 2.29.   
use and consumption of palm oil. Thailand understood tha t the adoption by the Parliament was not 
final, but that the measure would result in a reduction of biofuel produced from palm oil. At 
present, the EU 's consumption of energy from renewable sources allowed the contribution from 
biofuels, bioliquids as well  as from biomass fuels to be consumed in transport, if produced from 
food or feed crops, including palm oil. Howev er, the adoption of the measure  would remove palm 
oil by the year 2021, while other similar raw material s would remain until 2030. Thailand 
considered that the ph asing out of palm oil as a raw material for biofuel production was 
inconsistent with the TBT Agreement on the ground s of discrimination between palm oil and other 
types of vegetable oils. Thailand al so considered that a particular product should not be treated in 
a discriminatory manner. Thailand would be grateful for updated information and clarifications 
from the EU. His delegation would continue monitoring the matter and looked forward to a 
constru ctive trilogue discussion in Brussels.    
The representative of Indonesia  welcomed the EU's engagement in currently ongoing 2.30.   
bilateral talks to discuss the revision of the R enewable Energy Directive (RED),  but requested that 
the EU give a clear update at the  TBT Committee. Indonesia understood that the purpose of the 
RED was to replace the use of petroleum -based fuels with renewable energy fuels to reduce the 
level of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that led to increase d GHG emissions , to support 
environmental  sustainability , and to diversify ener gy supplies in the EU by 2020. The vote in the 
EU Parliament in January favoured  phasing out the use of biofuel derived from palm oil as early as 
2021. The measure applied only to palm oil and not to other vegetable oi ls which could serve as 
the ingredient to biofuel. He said that the Indonesian Government supported environmental 
sustainability and contributed to control deforestation. Government Regulation 104 , adopted in 
2015, tightened the permit for the conversion o f forest areas. Land conversion could only be 
carried out to the unproductive area after research by an integrated team. Regarding global land  
use, palm oil only occupied 10%  of land compared to the total land use of other vegetable oils. 
The RED was of pa ramount interest to Indonesia because it wo uld affect the livelihood of 
17 million small -scale farmers in Indonesia who heavily depended on palm oil.  
Indonesia was concerned that t he final adoption of proposed provisions could have  the 2.31.   
following impacts: (i) inhibit Indonesia's palm oil exports to the EU and establishment of new 
sustainable palm oil plantations in Indonesia, considering that Indonesia had committed to the 
2015-2030 SDGs with the pillars of social, economic, environmental and sustainable de velopment; 
and (ii) afford differentiated treatment between the use of palm oil as a biofuel feedstock 
compared to the use of other vegetable oils. The European Parliament indicated that vegetable oils 
derived from other sources were still allowed to be us ed as biofuel feedstock while biofuel derived 
from oil palm would be phased out.  
According to statistics, there had been  a decline in Indonesia's CPO exports to the EU in the 2.32.   
previous  three years (2015 -2017). In 2015, Indonesia's CPO exports to the EU stoo d at USD 1.4 
billion and decline d to USD 895 million in 2017 . Considering the importance of this issue to 
Indonesia, the delegation believed that the EU should  ensure consistency of the RED discussion 
with the provisions of the WTO.  
The representative of Colombia  raised concerns regarding the amendments to the 2.33.   
Renewable Energy Directive . The full statement is containe d in G/TBT/W/465 . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 8 - 
 
  The representative of Costa Rica  joined the concerns raised by other delegations. Costa Rica 2.34.   
shared the objective pursued by the EU of promoting  the use of renewable energy sources. 
Howe ver, it was essential that any restriction to the consumption of this product in the EU as a 
source of biofuels was based on risk analysis to guarantee that it was not a disguised restriction on 
trade . Further information was requested on the scientific ba sis that had led the EU to choose 
discriminatory treatment on palm oil -based biofuels.  
The representative of Guatemala  supported the concerns expressed.  Under the proposed 2.35.   
measure, each m ember State must ensure that  12% of the energy consumed by transport came  
from renewable sources , of which  no more than 7% should come from so -called "first generation" 
fuels (manufactured from food and feed) used for road and rail transport. Furthermore, the EU 
intended to ban the use of palm oil from 2021 onwards and cons idered palm oil production to be a 
key factor in deforestation. In Guatemala's views, the proposed measures contained discriminatory 
treatment lack ing any basis and put palm oil at a disadvantage compared to vegetable oils 
produced by the EU. These new mea sures would affect around 60% of Guatemala's palm oil 
exports to the EU. The palm oil agro -industry was a source of direct employment in Guatemala and 
generated some 28,000 jobs, in particular in rural areas. Palm production in Guatemala covered 
over 165,5 00 hectares and accounted for 2.2% of the country's arable land. Meanwhile, 
Guatemala was recognized as the most productive country per hectare, the national average was 
6.5 tonnes of crude palm oil, which equated to almost double the global production lev el. These 
achievements stem med from the commitment that Guatemalan producers had made to 
sustainability and good agricultural practices, which had enabled them to increase their efficiency 
per hectare and produce more with less. Moreover, in March 2017 and  February 2018, some palm 
oil producing countries had sent to the Presidents of the European Parliament, European 
Commission and European Council an official note detailing the concerns about the measures, and 
yet Guatemala did not believe that these point s had been taken into consideration. Guatemala 
reiterated its commitment to meeting the SDGs and its support for sustainable palm oil 
certification to meeting the Millennium Goals. In light of the above, Gu atemala requested open -
ended participation in the discussions on this matter in Brussels and requested the European 
Parliament, t he European Commission and the m ember States of the EU to consider the arguments 
and devise non -discriminatory measures, according to WTO  principles.  
The representative of Niger ia echoed comments of other delegations and said that Nigeria, 2.36.   
as a palm oil producing country trading with the EU, would revert to the matter with substantive 
concerns  at a later date .  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns ra ised. The full 2.37.   
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/474 . 
2.3.3.4   European Union — Laws, Regulations, procedures and guidelines on Marketing 
authorisation for medicinal products  
The representative of India expressed concerns regarding  granting market authorisations 2.38.   
for medicinal products , including generic , in the EU and its impact on the Indian pharma industry. 
India understood that there were a number of authorities involved in the process, such as the 
European Medicines Agency, CHMP and se parate authorities for each EU member State . He asked  
the EU to provide information and relevant documents to ensure a better understanding of the 
measure . 
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concer ns raised. The full 2.39.   
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/475 . 
2.3.3.5   European Union — Application of Regulation No. 1169/2011 and Regulation (EC) 
No. 1924/2006 as regards the labelling of food products, in n ot prohibiting or examining 
the use of "palm oil free" labels.  
The representative of Colombia  raised concerns regarding labelling requirements of food 2.40.   
products and the use of "palm oil -free" labels, in particular. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/467 . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 9 - 
 
  The representative of Indonesia  joined the delegation of Colombia and stressed that the 2.41.   
issue was of particular interest for Indonesia. Her delegation had a specific view about the 
scientific  evidence and would closely monitor development s and discussion on the issue. Indonesia 
reserved its right to raise the issue at the upcoming TBT meetings.  
The representative of Costa Rica  shared the concern of Colombia regarding the wide scope 2.42.   
of product s in the European market using "no palm oil" label s which, in Costa Rica's view , was not 
based on any scientific justification. It misled consumers into thinking that palm oil was not as 
good as other oils. There was no scientific justification for maintai ning the labelling on a general 
basis that palm oil products were harmful to health, nor was there any basis which would justify  
using these labels on packets.  
The representative of Guatemala  thanked Colombia for including the item on the TBT 2.43.   
Committee me eting's agenda. Guatemala shared the concerns expressed by other Members and , 
in particular, drew attention to the concern regarding EU measures and advertising campaigns 
against the consumption of palm oil and its use in various products. She noted that these 
measures and campaigns identified palm oil as a product that harmed health and environment ; 
"palm oil -free" and "n o palm oil" labels had negative impact and discouraged the consumption only 
of palm oil. This type of labelling misinformed consumers and in her delegation's view constituted 
a form of deceptive advertising. Guatemala believed that t he EU measures discriminat ed against 
palm oil and other vegetable oils and similar European products. The measures neither considered 
the efforts m ade by the palm oil agro -industry to ensure that production was sustainable and in 
conformity with international environmental sustainability standards , nor production differences 
between various palm oil producing regions and countries. Guatemala joined t he questions posed 
by Colombia and expressed hope that the EU would provide clarification.  
The representative of Thailand  registered its interest in the matter along with other 2.44.   
delegations.   
The representative of Malaysia  supported the concern raised by Co lombia, and would 2.45.   
continue to monitor the development of the issue in the TBT Committee.  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 2.46.   
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/476 . 
2.3.3.6   Thailand - New certification requirements under the Thai Ministry of Finance 's 
Ministerial Notification on Importation of Spirits into the Kingdom of Thailand (B.E 
2560)  
The representative of Australia  recognized the right of g overnments to take measures 2.47.   
necessary to protect public health and emphasized the importance of compliance with the TBT 
Agreement, in particular with the national treatment obligations and Article 2.2. He stressed that 
Australian exporters faced ongoing uncertainty rega rding the implementation and certification 
requirements under the notification  and needed clearer guidance in order to be able to comply . 
Australian exporters were also concerned about the impact of the requirements on their business, 
in particular, the co st involved in additional testing and the potentially long wait times for test 
results. Australia noted that the Certificate of Analysis must include an analysis of the liquor in 
accordance with the Thai Industrial Standard for Wine, Fruit Wine and other F ermented Beverages 
(TIS 2089 -2544). In Australia, wine production was governed by Standard 4.5.1 of the Australia 
New Zealand Food Standards Code. His delegation asked whether Thailand would recognize official 
certificates guaranteeing compliance with Aust ralia's requirements. He further requested 
clarification on whether testing of all 14 items listed in the Thai Industrial Standard was required if 
the use of the relevant material was not permitted in Australia or if the limit in Australia was the 
same or higher than that specified  in the Thai Industrial Standard.  
The representative of the United States  support ed the comments of Australia on the 2.48.   
measure.  
The representative of Japan  expressed an interest in the issue and currently was carefully 2.49.   
reviewing the measure, including examination of the impact on businesses. Any information by 
Thailand would be appreciated.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 10 - 
 
  The representative of the European Union  raised  concerns about the regulation, in particular 2.50.   
concerning the certificate of analysis and possib le impact of trade in alcoholic beverages . The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/522 . 
The representative of Thailand  explained that the purpose  of testing and certification 2.51.   
requirements was to protect consumer health and safety. She reported that the Excise Department 
was in the process of preparing a notification to the TBT Committee. The ministerial notification 
had been i n force since 16 September 2017, however  the Excise Department had announced that 
flexibility would be provided to the new requirements and that import ers were allowed to provide 
the sampling analysis or certificate of analysis to the Excise Department within 30 days after 
importation. This flexibility had been  extended to 14 September 2018. Thailan d would convey 
Members ' concerns to the Excise Departmen t for their consideration  and remained available to 
provide any further information on the  ministerial notification.  
2.3.4   Previously raised concerns  
2.3.4.1   India — Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles G/TBT/N/IND/20 
G/TBT/N/IND/40 (IMS ID 1332) 
The repres entative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding India — 2.52.   
Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/477 . 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated previously raised concerns3 2.53.   
requesting India to remove the discrimination between domestic and foreign companies and to 
eliminate the usage fee for ISI mark or at least reduce it.  
2.54.   The representative of India noted that this was  an old STC, and recalled his delegation's 
previous statements on this issue, in particular in respect of the amount of marking fee, the 
requirement of bank guarantee and the Scheme for Testing and Inspections (STI). With respect  to 
the concern that BIS ch arged  excessively high marking fee, India reiterated its position as 
expressed in previous meetings. He said that BIS was a non -profit organization and was no t 
guided by commercial interest , with marking fees aimed at covering administrative expenses (e.g.  
marking and testing of samples and other overhead expenses). The marking fee charged to foreign 
and domestic manufacturers was equal.  
On the concern about the bank guarantee, he reiterated his delegation's previous response 2.55.   
that the performance bank guara ntee was intended to protect the BIS during the tenure of the 
license and was invoked only in case of breach of any condition of the agreement signed between 
BIS and licensee. This guarantee covered loss of revenue to BIS on account of non -payment of 
requisite marking fee. He mentioned that while compensation through court was available for 
breaches by domestic manufacturers, this was not possible for breaches by foreign manufacturers.  
On the concern that testing requirements were burdensome and costly, Ind ia recalled its 2.56.   
statements at the November 2016, June 2017 and November 2017 Committee meetings, and 
noted the reduction in the sample size. He reiterated that as per the existing STI, the size of the 
control unit was up to 30,000 tyres manufactured under one family. Frequency of testing for 
various requirements in STI was based upon their criticality with respect to the overall 
performance of the tyre. The frequency was every 60,000 tyres in case of Tyre Dimensions and 
Thread Bear Indicators, whereas the f requency was every 30,000 tyres for: Load/Speed 
Performance test; Endurance test; Bead Unseating Resistan ce test for tubeless tyres; and  Tyre 
Strength test. India explained that this frequency was to ensure better quality control of the 
product performance  under Indian climatic conditions, in the interest of consumer s. Moreover, the 
aforementioned fre quency was common for all BIS licenc e holders, whether domestic or foreign.  
                                                
2 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 133  (under dates raised and references) . 
3 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.2, G/TBT/M/72, para  3.56, G/TBT/M/71, para 2.62.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.3.4.2   China — Provisions for the Administration of Cosmetics Application Acceptance 
G/TBT /N/CHN/821 (IMS ID 2964) 
The representative of Japan  recalled China mentioning during previous meetings that the 2.57.   
"Guidance for Application and Evaluation of New Cosmetic Ingredients " would be revised in 
accordance with the revision of "Regulations concerni ng Hygiene Supervision over Cosmetics " and 
asked for an update on the status of any revisions. Japan also requested that China notify the 
revisions in advance and provide a sufficient period of time prior to entry in to force. Japanese 
cosmetics companies had reported concerns with safety evaluations, information disclosure 
requirements and the speed of examinations. In the end, some had abandoned their applications 
due to the requirement for evaluation of a single sub stance, which would be physically difficult to 
extract in some cases. Furthermore, details of production procedures and synthesis conditions of a 
new substance constituted  confidential information. Therefore, some applications had been 
withdrawn as the req uired information could not be obtained from the ingredient supplier. Since 
the implementation of the current measure, only four new ingredients had been registered, and in 
some cases, the ingredients had remained unapproved for more than one year after th e technical 
evaluation without any clear explanation for the delay. Given the circumstances, the use of new 
ingredients in products intended for the Chinese market was being avoided.  
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns rega rding the 2.58.   
Provisions for the Administration of Cosmetics Application Acceptance. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/478 . 
The representative of China  said that it had offered detailed explanation s on the concerns, 2.59.   
most of which had already been raised in previous meetings. Since there were no updates, China 
invited interested Members to refer to the minutes of previous meetings.  
2.3.4.3   India — New Telecommunications related Rules (Department of 
Telecommu nications, No. 842 -725/2005 -VAS/Vol.III (3 December 2009); No. 10 -
15/2009 -AS-III/193 (18 March 2010); and Nos. 10 -15/2009 -AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(25 -
29) (28 July 2010); Department of Telecommunications, No. 10 -15/2009 -
AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) a nd accompanying template, "Security and 
Business Continuity Agreement") (IMS ID 2745) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding India's new 2.60.   
telecommunications related rules. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/479 . 
2.61.   The representative of Japan  expressed her delegation 's support for the position or the EU. 
With regard to the Unified Access Service License Agreement, Japan still had concerns on this new 
agreement and requested India to ensure that its telecom regulations did not impede market 
access for foreign industries. At previous meetings, India had noted that the deadline for the in -
country security certification had been extended to April 2018 and might be further extended. 
Japan reiterated its  request that the regulations be implemented in a transparent manner in terms 
of testing methods and certification requirements.  
The representative of the United States  said that several delegations in the TBT Committee, 2.62.   
including the United States, remain ed concerned that India 's telecommunications domestic 
security testing requirements could create an onerous and unnecessary trade barrier on Members ' 
companies, particularly SMEs. The United States continued to request that India inform 
stakeholders of the  new in -country testing effective date via a public notice and to send a 
notification to the TBT  Committee. Moreover, the United States request ed that India provide 
adequate time between the announcement of the effective date and the actual effective date for 
producers to comply. India had only identified security concerns and circumstances that existed in 
most countries , and the United States continued to note that these countries generally did not find 
it necessary to require in -country testing or an MRA.  India had thus failed to provide an adequate 
basis for this departure from international practice. As stated in previous interventions, security 
testing requirements that would potentially compromise companies ' proprietary information such 
as source code and other intellectual property would create an unnecessary barrier.  This was 
                                                
4 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 296  (under dates raised and references) . 
5 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 274  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 12 - 
 
  unacceptable to the United States. In addition, the US requested that India honour its commitment 
under the CCRA to accept the result s of CC tests conducted internationally, and accept 
international testing standards and schemes regardless of whether the tests were performed in 
India or at accredited labs outside of India.  
The representative of Canada  reiterate d concerns raised in the November 2016 TBT 2.63.   
Committee meeting6  
The representative of India said that telecom networks were a part of the critical 2.64.   
infrastructure on which other critical infrastructures like power, transportation, defence relied on. 
It had been clarified in the past that India would rely on international standards to the extent 
possible. Additional tests could be conducted, if required in the interest of national security and 
public interest. Common criteria certification did not, India said, address national concerns  on the 
security requirement of telecom networks. With respect to the in -country testing requirement and 
the security certification thereof, it was noted that these guidelines could not be treated as trade 
barriers in view of the fact that the guidelines w ere equally applicable to the 
manufacturers/vendors irrespective of the source of procurement, including the domestic 
manufacturers. The deadline for the in -country security certific ation had been extended until 
1 April 2018 and the notification was availa ble on the website of the Indian Department of 
Telecommunications. The current status regarding security testing and certification requirements 
would continue until the extended date or further extension. Sufficient allowance would be made in 
the provision  of transition time to facilitate compliance with the requirements through an actual 
effective date for the network elements.  
2.3.4.4   China — Requirements for information security products, including, inter alia, 
the Office of State Commercial Cryptography Adminis tration (OSCCA) 1999 Regulation 
on commercial encryption products and its on -going revision and the Multi -Level 
Protection Scheme (MLPS) ; China — Banking IT Equipment Security Regulation ; China — 
Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) Information and Commu nication Technology 
Regulation G/TBT/N/CHN/1172 (IMS IDs 294 , 457 and 4897) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the 2.65.   
adoption and entry into force of the new Cybersecurity Law for the existing rules, notably the 
MLPS and the OSCCA regulation on commercial encryption products . The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/48 0. 
The representative of the United States  remained troubled about China 's suite of measures 2.66.   
that appeared to discriminate against foreign technologies and firms in the name of information 
security.  This included China 's Cybersecurity Law and draft insurance sector informatization rules, 
along with many other specific measures. The US shared the concerns raised by the EU and looked 
forward to continuing discussion with China  on this important issue.  
The representative of Japan  supported the positions of the EU and US. Japan still had 2.67.   
concerns about the "Regulation on the Administration of Commercial Cipher Codes"  and the MLPS . 
The representative noted that at the previous meetings, China had stated that these two 
regulati ons were in the process of amendment in line with the principles of the Cybersecurity Law. 
Moreover, in January 2018, China had invited public comments on the "Information security 
technology - Guidelines for grading of clas sified cybersecurity protection ". Japan requested China 
to clarify the relation between these guidelines and MLPS and provide information on the revision 
of MLPS.  
The representative of Australia  reiterated previously raised concerns8 regarding the 2.68.   
proposed Insurance Regulatory Commission , Information and Communication Technology 
Regulation, and the Banking IT Equipment Security Regulation. Australia understood China's desire 
                                                
6 G/TBT/M/70 , para 2.68  
7 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 294 , IMS ID 457  and IMS ID 489  (under dates 
raised and references) . 
8 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.22;  G/TBT/M/72, para. 3.75; G/TBT/M/71, para. 2.162 and G/TBT/M/71, para. 
2.175.  
 G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 13 - 
 
  to protect ICT infrastructure but said that the proposed measures might be more trade restrictive 
than necessary. A ustralia asked for further information on the status of the regulations and 
whether they would be permanently withdrawn.  
The representative of China  said that in order to  implement the requirements of promoting 2.69.   
administration according to law, deepen the a dministrative reform and transform government 
functions in the domain of commercial cryptography, China was revising  the Regulations on 
Commercial Cryptography to further reduce the administrative  licenc es, and strengthen 
supervision in the whole process.  She said t he revision s of the Regulations on Commercial 
Cryptography were still in the process of research.  After the promulgation of the Law on 
Cryptography of the People's Republic of China, China would  continue to revise the Regulations on 
Commercial C ryptography according to the Law on Cryptography, and release the Regulations for 
public consultation in appropriate time.  
China  explained that the Cybersecurity Law stipulated  carrying  out the cybersecurity MLPS 2.70.   
that was based on the experience in  the past years. To fulfil the requirements of the  Cybersecurity 
Law, the regulati ons on the cybersecurity MLPS were being drafted , which would  replace the 
former administrative measures on the information security MLPS. Once completed, the regulation 
would  be ope n for comments.  
With respect to the Guideline for Promoting the Application of Secure and Controllable 2.71.   
Information Technology in Banking Sector (2014 -2015) , the representative said that  it had been 
suspended in April 2015, and had already expired.  China would always abide by its WTO 
commitments, and be open and transparent in drafting the measures for commercial banking 
information system s. Regarding insurance, she said that the CIRC  Regulation was still being 
drafted . She emphasized that d uring the whole p rocess, China had been  open, transparent, and 
had notified the  WTO.  China was  studying and evaluating all  comments, and bilateral 
communication and consultation s were ongoing . 
2.3.4.5   Russian Federation — Draft Technical Regulation on Alcohol Drinks Safety 
(publis hed on 24 October 2011), G/TBT/N/RUS/2 (IMS ID 3329) 
2.72.   The representative of Ukraine  reiterated previously raised concerns10 and asked Russia to 
inform the Committee on the outcome of the internal consultations taking place among member 
states of the EAEU as well as on any modifications made to the measure . 
 The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns and 2.73.   
requested clarification on whether Russia intended to provide a written response to comments 
submitted . The full state ment is contained in G/TBT/W/481 . 
 The representative of Guatemala  reiterated her delegation's request for updated 2.74.   
information on any progress made in the internal discussions within the EAEU to review comments 
received on this technical regulation. She also requested a tentative date for a final version of the 
draft and enquired whether it would be notified to the WTO and with what date of entry into force.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  repeated the response provided at the  2.75.   
previous meeting of the TBT Committee.11 
2.3.4.6   Republic of Korea — Regulation on Registration and Evaluation of Chemical 
Material G/TBT/N/KOR/305, G/TBT/N/KOR/305/Add.1, G/TBT/N/KOR/478, 
G/TBT/N/KOR/547, G/TBT/N/KOR/592, G/TBT/N/KOR/700 (IMS ID 30512) 
2.76.   The representative of the United States  thanked Korea for their bilateral engagement , and 
in ad dition  to recalling that the US concerns were well known , expressed a new concern  by US 
industry, that polymer requirements did not correspond to the requirement s in Korea's worker 
safety law.  
                                                
9 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID  332 (under dates raised and references).  
10 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.26,  G/TBT/M/72, para. 3.81, G/TBT/M/71, para. 2.79.  
11 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.30. 
12 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 305 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 14 - 
 
  The representative of the Republic of Korea  informed the Committee that the r evised 2.77.   
version of the Act on  Registration, Evaluation of Chemical Substances (G/TBT/N/KOR/700) had 
been made public on 20 March 2018 with an implem entation date of 1 January 2019. Korea 
intended to collect opinions from stakeholders openly with respect to subordinate regulations 
through the pre -announcement of legislation. Additionally, according to this revised version, the 
annual report system woul d be removed. Finally, she recalled that Korea and the US had already 
discussed bilaterally about the detailed information on CBI (Confidential Business Information) as 
well as the Worker Safety Law. In this respect, Korea ha d tried to reduce companies' bu rden, for 
example, by adopting a report system for new chemical substances in small volume and simplified 
documents for registration exemption of R&D usage. Korea intended to continue these 
consultations with Member in a transparent manner.  
2.3.4.7   Indonesia — Technical Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adoption and 
Supervision of Indonesian National Standards for Obligatory Toy Safety, 
G/TBT/N/IDN/64, G/TBT/N/IDN/64/Add.1 -2 (IMS ID 32813) 
2.78.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the review 
of the Regulation of Minister of Industry No. 55 revising Regulation of Minister of  Industry No. 24, 
which concerned  the mandatory implementation of SNI  (Indonesia national standard) for Toys . 
The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/482 . 
The representative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns14 and once 2.79.   
again request ed an update on the status of any revisions of the Ministerial Regulation. Her 
delegation stated that from the last TBT Committee meeting, it was not clear how the next revision 
of the regulation would treat the government -to-government Mutual Recognition Ag reement (G2G 
MRA) requirement. She asked whether Indonesia intended to remove the MRA requirement in the 
next revision of the regulation and requested that Indonesia allow toy testing to be performed by 
any ILAC/MLA -accredited laboratory on a permanent bas is, without requiring a G2G MRA.   
Furthermore, her delegation understood that some overseas labs were currently permitted 2.80.   
to perform toy testing provided that they had an agreement in place with an LSPro. She asked 
Indonesia to share more details on this a nd also the requirements for US lab s to establish an 
agreement with an LSPro in Indonesia. She remained hopeful that the revised regulation would 
also address the lingering concerns as they related to testing frequency, sampling, documentation, 
and substan ce restrictions. Her delegation requested an update on Indonesia 's deliberations on 
testing frequency and noted that she would like to see importers and domestic producers treated 
the same with respect to testing frequency, and for these changes to be refl ected in the next 
revision of the Ministerial Regulation.   
The representative of Japan  expressed support for the positions of the EU and repeated 2.81.   
concerns raised in previous meetings. Her delegation noted that in the previous meetings, 
Indonesia had explai ned that the draft Ministerial Regulation was still under review and the 
revision was expected to be completed by the end of 2017.  She requested Indonesia to notify the 
regulation to the WTO in advance and to provide sufficient time until the date of entry  into force in 
accordance with TBT rules.  
The representative of Indonesia  explained that Indonesia had held bilateral meetings with 2.82.   
some Members to discuss th e issue and informed the whole membership that the revision process 
was not yet concluded. Indones ia was developing  a standard for toy safety which would 
correspond to the international standard, in this case the ISO, requiring  efforts to bring different 
stakeholders together to reach a national consensus. On that note, she reassured Members that 
the revision process would be in line with WTO rules.  
                                                
13 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 328  (unde r dates raised and references) . 
14 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.32, G/TBT/M/72, para3.89, G/TBT/M/71, para 2.88.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.3.4.8   European Union — Draft Implementing Regulations amending Regulation (EC) 
No. 607/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, 
traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products , 
G/TBT/N/EU/246 , G/TBT/N/EU/246/Add.1  (IMS ID 34515) 
2.83.   The representative of Argentina  reiterate d previously raised concerns .16 His delegation 
explained  that Argentina complied in good faith with all the requirements established by EU law  
regarding the registration process for the traditional terms "Reserva" and "Gran Reserva". 
Nevertheless, at present, six years after having comp leted the substantive step for registration 
according to Regulations 607/2009 a nd 479/2008, the application had  yet to be included for formal 
approval by the College of Commissioners.  Argentina was concerned that its application was being 
intentionally blo cked by the Eur opean Commission, and the EU had  provided no legal justification 
for this lack of action. Furthermore, the six years of procedural inactivity clearly demonstrate d a 
complete failure to perform the duties of sound administration and a breach of their obligation to 
act as quickly as possible, in line with the TBT Agreement.  Argentina expressed serious concerns 
not only about the commercial impact of the EU measures, but fundamentally the unwillingness to 
resolve this issue and urged the EU to c onclude without further undue delay the formal process for 
the approval of the registration of the traditional terms "Reserva" and "Gran Reserva".  
2.84.   The representative of the United States  understood that the Commission had  presented a 
draft regulation to th e European Parliament 's Agriculture Committee.  The US asked for clarification 
on the status of this draft regulation and when the EU would notify it  to allow trading partners the 
opportunity to comment . Her delegation expressed regret at the EU's ongoing f ailure to provide 
updates on revisions to its draft regulation on geographical in dications and traditional terms, and, 
more importantly, on applications for traditional terms  which had been  pending for eight years . US 
exporters had been unable to include the relevant terms on their exports to Europe despite being 
able to use them widely in other markets.  While the EU appeared to be co nsidering applications for 
its m ember States , it had  not been able to provide even basic information about whethe r US 
applications were being considered  which gave the impression  that no action had been  taken. In 
particular, the record of the Commission 's 27 September  2017 meeting of its Committee for 
Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets – Subgroup Wine sugges ted that the Commission 
was processing applications for traditional terms from France and Croatia. The US asked for 
confirmation whether the EU  was reviewing other applications . If so, she asked why the EU was 
processing some applications but not others  and what the EU was doing on applicati ons from its  
trading partners . The US was concerned that the application process was simply a pretence  for 
those outside the EU , and that  it was  well past time for action. She requested that the  EU begin an 
expedited rev iew of US  applications and provide evidence that the review was  actually taking 
place. 
2.85.   The representative of Brazil  renewed its support to those raising concerns as this ordinance 
also raised obstacles to wine producers in Brazil.  The regulation of terms that were currently in use 
in the international market , without technical justification, created  unnecessary barriers to trade. 
The fact that the EU had been  analys ing other countrie s' dossiers for eight years indicated that it 
had been used as a non -tariff barrier and not to reach legitimate objectives established in th e TBT 
Agreement. Brazil asked  what steps the EU would take and the estimated timeframe related to the 
use of regulated terms in Regulation (EC) No. 607/2009 and Coun cil Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 
for wines exported to the EU.  
2.86.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/483 . 
                                                
15 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 345  (under dates raised a nd references) . 
16 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.38, G/TBT/M/72, para 3. 92, G/TBT/M/71, para 2.94.   G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.3.4.9   India — Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for 
Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 G/TBT/N/IND/44, G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.1 -5, 
G/TBT/N/IND/47 G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.1 -3, G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.1/Corr.1 
(IMS ID 36717) 
The representative of the European Unio n continued to raise concerns regarding India's 2.87.   
compulsory registration scheme for electronics and information technology goods. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/484 . 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  indicated that several bilateral meetings with 2.88.   
the Indian delegation had been held since 2015. Korea appreciated India's efforts and 
improvements; however, some concerns remained unresolved. Korea asked that Indian authorities 
accept test reports approved by the IEC EE CB scheme. According to IECEE 02, India, as a member 
of the IECEE CB scheme, had an obligation to mutually accept test results of member countries. It 
was indicated in Part 1 of the Rules of Procedure that if a member failed to comply with the 
obligatio n, it would face suspension of membership, expulsion etc. Accepting test results of 
laboratories accredited by the IECEE CB Scheme would eliminate the unnecessary burden on 
foreign companies and relieve a technical barrier.  
The representative of the United  States  said that India 's Compulsory Registration Order 2.89.   
(CRO) requirements continued to raise serious concerns, including the requirement that product 
testing be done only by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) -accredited labs located within India. The 
US fai led to see why India could not recognize test results from internationally accredited labs , 
particularly under the IECEE CB scheme, of which India was a member. She asked for an 
explanation as to why India refused to recognize test results from internation al accreditation 
schemes. While thanking India for notifying MEITY 's expansion of the CRO product list 
(IND/44/Add 6) to the TBT Committee in November 2017, she also pointed out that it had been 
notified retroactively and without a comment and review perio d. The continual expansion of the list 
of products under the CRO was deeply disappointing as it created confusion, added unnecessary 
burdens, and increased the cost of doing business in India. The current process for adding 
products under the CRO mandate c reated an uncertain and arbitrary market environment that 
added unnecessary burdens to exporters of Members. Based on the troubling and seemingly 
inexplicable aspects of the CRO, the only conclusion the US could reach was that the CRO was an 
unwarranted ba rrier to trade and the situation needed to be rectified.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  support ed the concerns of other Members on 2.90.   
compulsory registrati on requirements in India and express ed interest in further simplification of 
the procedure . Russia was  interested in receiving additional information about the scope of the 
measure and any plans India had to change the scheme.  
The representative of Canada  express ed support for the previous interventions with respect 2.91.   
to the ongoing concerns rela ted to India 's Compulsory Registration  Requirements .  
The representative of India referred interested delegations to the statements made by India 2.92.   
in previous meetings. India had notified all relevant measures to the TBT Committee well in time. 
The latest notification dated 6 November 2017 could be accessed in document 
G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add. 6. It was important to reiterate that BIS accepted IECEE CB test reports for 
critical components under the BIS  Registration scheme. Furthermore, the IECEE Publication "IECEE  
01" specified the Basic Rules of the IEC Conformity Assessment Systems wherein the legal 
provisions of IECEE at the national level provided for the country law to prevail over any other 
obligation under IEC Conformity Assessment Systems. The matter of acc eptance of CB test reports 
and certificates had been discussed between Indian authorities and IECEE officials in a meeting 
held on 18 October 2013. In a joint communication issued on the matter, both sides had noted 
that India had not made any infringement  of the IECEE Rules. Regarding the streamlining of 
procedures, India had informed the Committee during the June and November 2017 meetings that 
provision had been made for online acceptance of documents relating to the revision of IS 16046. 
The application  for the granting of licences, inclusion of new models and the communications 
thereof were all made through the online portal, thus eliminating unnecessary delays. Even though 
only test reports from BIS -recognised labs were accepted under the BIS Registrat ion scheme, BIS 
                                                
17 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 367  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Lab Recognition Scheme (LRS) had criteria for recognition of overseas laboratories depending on 
MRAs with other countries. India welcomed further bilateral discussions with interested Members 
to discuss any concerns.  
2.3.4.10   European Union — Revise d Proposal for the Categorization of Compounds as 
Endocrine Disruptors of 19 February 2013 by DG Environment 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/SPS/N/EU/166,  G/SPS/N/EU/166/Add.1  (IMS ID 39318) 
2.93.   The representative o f the United States  continued to raise concerns regarding the EU 's 
hazard -based approach to regulating substances identified as endocrine disruptors. The US did not 
support the indiscriminate use of hazard -based criteria to ban substances. Despite the many 
interventions in the TBT Committee, it remained unclear how the EU intended to ensure that its 
regulatory approach was consistent with the provisions of the TBT and SPS Agreements. The US 
asked that the EU explain how its approach provided a sufficient basis for achieving the objective 
of safeguarding human health and the environment by simply identifying hazards, and without 
identifying actual risks or reasonable methods for managing potential risks, so as to be no more 
trade -restrictive than necessary. Many of the substances that would be impacted by the EU 's 
regulati ons were managed effectively under risk -based systems in other countries.  Thus, the US 
found it difficult to believe that the only way the EU could manage these products was to ban 
them. These measures could become unnecessary barriers to trade and the TBT  Agreement had 
imposed disciplines on these types of measures.  
The EU 's approach to chemical regulation would remove many crop protection tools and 2.94.   
biocides from the market, even if these substances had histories of safe use in Europe and were 
still being  used safely in other countries. The EU 's update in December 2017 had not alleviated the 
US' concerns. Her delegation emphasized  two points on this matter.  First, the revised criteria for 
plant protection products endorsed by EU Member States in December 2 017, and currently u nder 
scrutiny by the Parliament, if adopted, would lead to the banning of many more substances than 
previously suggested in the EU 's 2016 WTO notification, and its impact assessment report on 
criteria for identifying endocrine disruptor s. Second, she recalled that in December 2016, the EU 
had excluded the amendment to its derogation criteria, making it effectively impossible to 
establish MRLs or import tolerances for substances identified as endocrine disruptors. Further, the 
US understo od that the derogation for "serious danger to plant health " in Article 4.7 of Regulation 
1107/2009 provided an avenue to allow the use of banned substances by EU producers in certain 
circumstances, and to set MRLs under Regulation 396/2005.  However, the US  was unaware of any 
provision that would allow foreign producers to apply for such an exemption. Her delegation failed 
to see how public health was facilitated by making decisions simply on the basis of the applicant 's 
domicile. A recent study estimated th at the banning of crop protection tools and withdrawal of 
MRLs based on the EU 's hazard criteria could adversely affect agricultural trade flows valued at 
approximately US$86 billion.  This study estimated that US exports to the EU would be greatly 
impacted . Considering exports in relation to GDP, however, there would be a far greater and 
disproportionate impact on the economies of many developing countries. Therefore, the US 
continued to remind the EU that there were other approaches to regulating these sub stances that 
provided the high levels of human health and environmental protection sought by the EU without 
posing unnecessary barriers to trade. Additionally, her delegation stressed the importance of non -
discrimination, transparency, and predictability i n the implementation of TBT measures.  
The representative of Canada  reiterate d previously raised concerns.19 Canada remained 2.95.   
deeply concerned with the EU 's movement towards a hazard -based approach for regulatory 
decisions for pest control products. It was at  odds with good regu latory practice and the EU 's WTO 
obligations.  More broadly, Canada sought concrete assurances from the EU that decisions on 
setting MRLs will continue to be made on the basis of complete risk assessments, as set out in 
Regulation 396/20 05. 
The representative of Panama  believed that the restrictions of pesticides were a serious 2.96.   
problem and the study that was mentioned by the US estimated the possible economic impact of 
US$150 million or around 10% of its production value. The EU was Panama's main trading partner 
                                                
18 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 3 93 (under dates raised and references) . 
19 G/TBT/M/72, para 3.102, G/TBT/M/71, para 2.111.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 18 - 
 
  when it came to the exportation of coffee and tropical fruits. Therefore, his delegation asked the 
EU to review these policies and demonstrate some scientific basi s in line with international 
standards and in line with international organizations such as the FAO.  
The representative of Argentina  reiterated previously raised concerns20 in the previous 2.97.   
Committee meeting. He asked the EU whether it will submit a new prop osal to establish definitive 
criteria for substances with endocrine disrupting properties, in the terms requested by the 
European Parliament, or whether the provisional criteria for these substances will be maintained 
over time, in accordance with the Regu lation ( CE) No. 1107/2009. Argentina reiterated its request 
that, for substances with endocrine disruption properties as well as for any other substance that 
falls within the cut -off criteria, the EU maintains import tolerances, with maximum residue limit s 
(MRLs) greater than the default values, taking into account what is established in Regulation 
396/2005, in accordance with information and scientific evidence that is provided for this purpose 
that demonstrates that said MRLs are safe.  
The representative  of Australia  remained keenly interested in the EU 's proposed approach 2.98.   
for regulating pesticides, including approaches for regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals 
(EDCs), and the herbicide glyphosate. His delegation thanked the EU for its ongoing engagem ent 
with Australia on these issues and looked forward to continuing this constructive engagement. He 
noted that in December 2017, EU m ember States had voted in favour of a new draft regulation 
setting criteria for the identification of endocrine disruptors  used in pesticides and that this 
regulation was undergoing scrutiny by the European Parliament. He also noted that the Council of 
the European Union had adopted the criteria on 27 February 2018. The regulation provided for the 
new criteria to be applied f or the first approval of an active substance or at the time of renewal or 
review of its approval, for an active substance already approved. Australia was concerned that new 
regulatory decisions could be made that prioritized the review of some active subst ances regarded 
as meeting the new criteria, thereby reducing the transition period required for the industry to 
adapt to the new situation. This could disrupt Australia 's premium grain, oilseed and horticultural 
exports to the EU. Besides, on  27 November 2 017 European m ember States had agreed to a five -
year renewal period for glyphosate rather than the fifteen -year maximum renewal period and on 
6 February 2018 the European Parliament had voted in favour of establishing a Special Committee 
on the EU 's author ization procedures for pesticides. Australia understood that, amongst other 
things, the Special Committee would assess potential failures in the scientific evaluation of the 
approval, or renewal of approval, of active substances such as glyphosate by relev ant EU agencies 
and possible conflicts of interest at all levels of the approval process. He believed there was sound 
evidence that glyphosate could be used safely.   
The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by the US and Canada. 2.99.   
Regulatio n on endocrine disruptors should be established according to scientific principles and 
taking into account sound scientific evidence. Besides, it was necessary to use all available data in 
order to demonstrate that a substance was an endocrine disruptor. P rohibiting the use of a 
substance based on its potential impact on the endocrine system without sound scientific evidence 
could create inaccurate safety concerns and reduction in the availability of food and food waste, 
besides causing unnecessary trade re strictions. In addition, the use of improper evidence could 
result in the identification of endocrine -active compounds that did not have relevance to health or 
the environment. Evaluations must be able to separate chemicals that had the potential to cause 
harm due to their endocrine mode of action from those substances that did not pose a threat to 
human health. Furthermore, his delegation reiterated its concerns regarding the definition of MRLs 
and tolerance levels of these substances, which should be addr essed according to the principles of 
the SPS agreement.  
The representative of Thailand  supported statements made by other Members regarding 2.100.   
the revised proposal for the Categorization of Compounds as Endocrine Disruptors and reiterated 
its statement expres sed in the previous meetings. While a number of Members had attempted to 
intervene in the EU 's regulation, it had still been developed based on hazard cut -off rather than 
risk assessment criteria which would pose a great impact on international trade. Thai land hoped 
that the EU would take its concerns into consideration.    
                                                
20 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.54  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 19 - 
 
  The representative of Uruguay  supported the statements made by others. The concerns 2.101.   
raised by Uruguay remained and he asked that reference be made to previous stat ements in the 
interest s of time.21 
The representative of Colombia  remained interested in the matter. Her delegation 2.102.   
considered that any proposal on the criteria for determining the categorization of compounds as 
endocrine disruptors should be based on a risk assessment which woul d enable Colombia to 
identify factually which compounds constituted a real risk to public health, respecting the 
fundamental principles of the TBT Agreement. She requested an update on progress made in the 
EU on this regulation.  
The representative of Guate mala reiterated its concern on the EU regulation that 2.103.   
jeopardized agricultural products particularly on exports of developing countries.  The definition 
identifying the criteria of endocrine disruptors as a hazard rather than a r isk analysis as 
established by Codex Alimentarius  was of particular concern . Guatemala  supported other Members ' 
concerns  in asking for clarification feedback as to whether there would be other public 
consultations during 2018 in Brussels.  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 2.104.   
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/485 .  
2.3.4.11   Russian Federation — Safety of products for children and adolescents 
G/TBT/N/RUS/29 (IMS ID 41822) 
2.105.   The representat ive of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding Russia's 
measure on the safety of products for children and adolescents . The full statement is contained in  
G/TBT/W/486 . 
2.106.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated its statement from the previous 
meeting.23 
2.3.4.12   Thailand — Draft Notification of the Alcoholic Beverages Control, Re: Rules, 
Procedure a nd condition for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages, issued under B.E. , 
G/TBT/N/THA/437, G/TBT/N/THA/437/Add.1  (IMS ID 42724)  
2.107.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the Rules, 
Procedure and condition for Labels of Alcohol ic Beverages . The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/487 . 
The representative of the United States , whilst strongly supporting  Thailand' s efforts to 2.108.   
tackle the public health challenges associated with excessive alcohol consumption,  again raised 
concerns about the regulation. At the November 2017 TBT Committee meeting, Thailand said they 
had conducted a consultation on the guidelines to the regulation, and the United States requested 
a status update on those consultations. She asked if Thailand intended to publish any information 
regarding its consultative process, or the comments it had received on the Internet, for interested 
stakeholders to review. The United States also asked whether Thailand was reviewing both the 
regulation and its guidelines. The United States again requested that Thailand suspend 
enforcement of the regulation until the review process was completed and US exporters had 
certainty about the rules. At the same  meeting, Thailand said they had published a preliminary 
assessment on warning labels for alcoholic beverages on the Internet. However, her delegation  
had been unable to locate that assessment, and therefore asked Thailand to provide the address of 
the web site where it was located. Moreover, she asked for an update on Thailand' s plans in this 
regard. The United Stated respectfully reminded Thailand of its obligation to notify the TBT 
Committee of any proposed changes to alcohol labelling  regulations in orde r to provide interested 
stakeholders with the opportunity to comment before those regulations were finalized.  
                                                
21 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.55, G/TBT/M/72 para. 3.105;  G/TBT/M/71 para . 2.118.  
22 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 418  (under dates raised and references) . 
23 G/TBT/M/73 , para 2.66.  
24 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 427  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 20 - 
 
  The representative of New Zealand  acknowledged and supported Thailand's right to 2.109.   
introduce new regulations to address specific public health conce rns. New Zealand appreciated that 
in seeking to address the harmful use of alcohol the technical regulation was directed to achieving 
a legitimate public health objective. However, New Zealand remained concerned that the labelling 
requirements in their cur rent form were unclear and may be difficult to implement in practice. New 
Zealand asked if Thailand could update Members on the progress of any intended revisions to the 
regulations and implementing guidance.  
The representative of Guatemala  recognized the need to protect the health of consumers 2.110.   
and the legitimate objective of Thailand to reduce alcohol consumption in its population. However, 
Guatemala considered that this measure could be more trade restrictive than necessary. At the 
November 2017 TBT Commi ttee meetings, Thailand had informed the Committee that they would 
prepare an official report on the public consultation held in October .  Guatemala asked  whether 
this document was available for consultation . Guatemala asked if Thailand could indicate when  the 
next public consultation related to this technical regulation would take place.  
The representative of Australia  reiterat ed previously raised concerns.25 2.111.   
The representative of Japan  shared the concerns raised by other Members, and requested 2.112.   
Thailand to provide new information taking into consideration the result of the consultation held in 
Thailand on 31 October 2017. Japan requested Thailand to sufficiently and appropriately amend 
the regulation before enforcement , considering all c omments from concerne d Members.  
The representative of Thailand  updated Members on progress on the technical document of 2.113.   
the regulation on the labelling control of alcoholic beverages. He recalled that at the previous 
meeting, his delegation had informed Members that at the end  of October 2017, Thailand had 
convened a stakeholder consultation to gather comments and suggestions on the technical 
document of this regulation. In May 2018, Thailand would  hold another stakeholder consultation to 
get views from civil society and other concerned groups, as suggested at the first consultation. 
Thailand believed that this timeline would allow all other concerned stakeholders to be well 
prepared in advance of the consultation. Thailand said the results and recommendations from both 
consulta tions would be proposed to the responsible working group and committees, to consider 
further improvement of the technical document. Finally, he informed Members that Thailand had 
posted the primary evaluation of the technical regulation on the website of t he Center for Alcohol 
Studies of Thailand and the Office of Alcohol Control Committee. With respect to Thailand's 
pictorial warning measure, Thailand noted Members' concerns and reiterated that it would follow 
the TBT Agreement and notify this measure to t he TBT Committee in due course. Thailand also 
reaffirmed its right to protect the health of the Thai population, especially the young generation.  
2.3.4.13   China — Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices 
(Order No. 650 of the State Coun cil) G/TBT/N/CHN/1022, G/TBT/N/CHN/1023, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1024, G/TBT/N/CHN/1025, G/TB T/N/CHN/1026, G/TBT/N/CHN/1029 
(IMS ID 42826) 
2.114.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  noted that  in licensing imported medical 
devices , China only recognized test reports issued by China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) -
designated laboratories located in China. This led to unnecessary duplication of testing and 
additional incurred costs and delays. In this respect, Korea requested that China designate or 
recognize not only laboratories located in China but also those in foreign countries, or to recognize 
test reports issued by internationally accredited laboratories in the process of licensing imported 
medical devices.  
2.115.   The representati ve of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding China's  
Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices. The full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/488 . 
2.116.   The representative of China  recalled that it had provided detailed explanation for most of 
the questions raised at previous meetings. China updated the Committee that in January 2018, the 
                                                
25 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.82, G/TBT/M/72, para 3.126, G/TBT/M/71, para. 2.141.  
26 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 428  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 21 - 
 
  CFDA had released a guideline to instruct work on the acceptance of clinical trial results of medical 
devices overseas as clinical evaluation materials . These guidelines aimed to reduce  the duplication 
of clinical trials, and to speed up the marketing process.  
2.3.4.14   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, 
United Arab Emirates, Yemen — The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf 
Draft Technical Regulation for "Requirements of Handling Energy Drinks" , 
G/TBT/N/ARE/262 , G/TBT/N/QAT/389 , G/TBT/N/SAU/669 , G/TBT/N/SAU/789 , 
G/TBT/N/ARE/299 , G/TBT/N/BHR/426 , G/TBT/N/KWT/309 , G/TBT/N/OMN/23 8, 
G/TBT/N/QAT/423 , G/TBT/N/SAU/910 , G/TBT/N/YEM/29 , G/TBT/N/ARE/301 , 
G/TBT/N/BHR/428 , G/TBT/N/KWT/311 , G/TBT/N/OMN/240 , G/TBT/N/QAT/425 , 
G/TBT/N/SAU/912 , G/TBT/N/YEM/31 ( IMS ID 44227) 
2.117.   The representative of t he European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the 
regulation on the r equirements of handling energy drinks. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/489 . 
2.118.   The representative of Switzerland  reiterated concerns raised in the previous meeting.28 
Switzerland had submitted additional comments in December 2017 and looked forward to 
receiving replies. He requested that the GCC GSO take all the comments submitted into account.  
The representative of the State of Kuwait  informed the Committee that the GCC GSO was 2.119.   
still drafting the regulation based on comments received by Members. Any additional comments or 
questions from Members would be sent to the competent authority.  
2.3.4.15   European Union — Common Criteria for Information Technology Security 
Evaluation (Common Criteria) certification in the EU  (IMS ID 44829) 
2.120.   The representative of China  reiterated concerns raised in the previous meeting .30 
2.121.   The representative of the European Union  provide d further responses and arguments with 
respect to China's concerns with the Common Criteria Certification. The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/490 . 
2.3.4.16   China — Administrative Measure on Cosmetic s Labelling (AMCL) 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1064  (IMS ID 45631)  
2.122.   The representative of Japan  reiterated previously raised concerns .32 Japan considered that 
the inclusion on the product label of all subcontractors in addition to the company with final legal 
responsibility  would confuse consumers. On the evaluation of cosmetics efficacy claims, if China 
insisted on the disclosure of testing results, since the testing results could include protected know -
how, companies would no longer sell high performance products in China which would lead to 
these products no longer being available to Chinese consumers. Japan welcomed China's 
confirmation that over -labelling would be allowed on imported cosmetic products and asked that 
their other concerns be given due consideration.  
2.123.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding China's  
Administrative Measure on Cosmetics Labelling. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/491 . 
2.124.   The representat ive of New Zealand  reiterated previously raised concerns .33 New Zealand 
was encouraged by China 's pilot trials to better facilitate trade, including of cosmetic products, and 
looked  forward to seeing those  trials applied nationally.  
                                                
27 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 442  (under dates raised and references) . 
28 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.88.  
29 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 448  (under dates raised and references) . 
30 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.85.  
31 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 456  (under dates raised and references) . 
32 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.90.  
33 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.91, G/TBT/M/72, para 3.144, G/TBT/M/71, para  2.155 . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 22 - 
 
  The representative of China said that the AMCL was still under drafting. Comments from 2.125.   
Members ha d been evaluated and studied. Labels in Chinese could  be attached to the imported 
products consistent with relevant regulations and rules in China, following the international 
practic es and proposals from Members.  
2.3.4.17   China — Registration Fees for Drugs and Medical Device Products 
(IMS ID 46634) 
2.126.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  expressed  concern about China's 
discriminatory registration fees  which imposed  much higher fees for imported medical devices 
compared to those  charged on domestically manufactured devices. China, it was noted, had 
responded that the higher registration fee was set for imported medical devices because it 
included costs for on -site in spection of foreign facilities. However, because on -site inspection of a 
foreign facility was not a requirement for all medical devices, Korea requested China to set the 
registration fee for imported devices in a reasonable and transparent manner by separa ting on -site 
inspection costs from the total fee.  
2.127.   The representative of Australia  expressed continued interest in this matter. Australian 
businesses had raised concerns regarding the China Food and Drug Administration's fee schedule 
and registration proces ses. Australia thanked China for the constructive bilateral discussions and 
looked forward to further cooperation.  
2.128.   The representative of China  noted that the imposition of r egistration fees for drugs and 
medical devices was common practice internationally . The registration fees in China were 
calculated on the basis of costs. The difference between the drugs and medical devices only 
reflect ed different workloads and pricing levels.  
2.3.4.18   Brazil — Draft Ordinance Act Nº 374, 27 November 2014 (Portaria SDA/MAPA 
374/2014) Establishes quality requirements for wine and derivatives of grape and wine , 
G/TBT/N/BRA/613, G/TBT/N/BRA/613/Rev.1, G/TBT/N/BRA/675 (IMS ID 47035) 
The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns  regarding the draft 2.129.   
ordinance establishin g quality requirements for wine and derivatives of grape and wine . The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/492 . 
2.130.   The representative of Brazil  stressed that the process relating to the meas ure at issue had 
been conducted in a very transparent manner, in accordance with the TBT Agreement. All 
comments had been taken into consideration and individual answers to specific concerns had been 
delivered. Brazil also reminded the EU that the Brazilia n agricultural authorities had held a public 
hearing on 27-29 June 2017. Also, it was appreciated that the EU recognize that many of its 
suggestions had been taken into consideration in the latest version of the Brazilian ordinance. It 
was noted that the t echnical regulation had been published in the Brazilian Official Journal on 
9 March and notified to the WTO through document G/TBT/N/BRA/613/Rev.1/Add.1. T he 
Regulation established a 360 -day period of transition in order to allow industry to adapt and Braz il 
was open to clarify all aspects of this regulation and to discuss with delegations who wished to 
further engage.  
2.3.4.19   Brazil — Toy Certification; Ordinance No. 89, No. 310 and draft administrative 
rule No. 321 G/TBT/N/BRA/612, G/TBT/N/BRA/612/Add.1  (IMS ID 47836) 
2.131.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns regarding  INMETRO's 
Ordinance No. 563 of  29 December 2016. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/493 . 
2.132.   The representative of Canada  echoed the concerns raised by other Members and requested 
updates regarding possible revisions to the Ordinance, in addition to whether any implementation 
guidelines were available for producers .  
                                                
34 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 4 66 (under dates raised and refer ences) . 
35 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 470  (under dates raised and references) . 
36 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 47 8 (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 23 - 
 
  2.133.   The representative of Brazil , in stressing the openness and transparency of the process, 
recalled that all comments had been taken into consideration. He confirmed informal information 
that a new public consultation would be open in April 2018 to all st akeholders, the scope and 
details of which were still being finalized. The review process was expected to be concluded, and 
the final technical regulation published, by January 2019.  
2.3.4.20   China — Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal 
(IMS  ID 47737) 
2.134.   The representative of Australia  thanked China for the continued bilateral discussions over 
the previous three years, in the TBT Committee and other fora, regarding its coal standard and 
conformity assessment measures. China was Australia 's second l argest coal export market and 
there continued to be great interest from Australian industry and exporters regarding the 
implementation and application of these measures. Australia had exported 75.3 million tonnes of 
coal to China in 2017, down by 19.5%  compared to  2014, the last full year before the coal 
standards had been  introduced. While Australia 's coal exports  had improved in 2016 compared to 
2015, they had been  stagnant in 2017. A survey conducted by the Minerals Council of Australia 
(MCA) among  its coal industry members  in late 2017 indicated  that the introduction of the co al 
quality standards was  continuing to have a negative impact on Au stralia 's coal exports to China  
and the  industry view was that the  coal standards appear ed to be inconsistent with WTO rules. 
Australia supported China's environmental objectives of improving air quality and promoting the 
efficient and cleaner use of coal. However, retesting of coal in China was causing significant delays 
for Australian exports  and adding greatly to costs of trade. Australian testing facilities were 
equipped to accurately test for quality standards and Australian coal was exceeding the high 
standards required. A free, open and transparent trade in coal would support China's  objective of 
addressing the environmental impact of coal. Australia attac hed a very high priority to finding an 
amicable solu tion to the problem and believed  that the easiest and quickest solution would be for 
China to accept coal test results by independent t est laboratories in Australia, in line with other 
coal importing countries.  
2.135.   The representative of China  said that the interim measures for quality management of 
commercial coal had come into force in January 2015. Both imported coal and domestic coal in 
China were required to satisfy the same standards contained in the regulation.  
2.3.4.21   India — The Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015  
(IMS  ID 48638) 
2.136.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns over this measure 
which const ituted an unnecessary technical barrier to trade and discriminated against foreign 
producers.  The full statement  is contained in G/TBT/W/494 . 
2.137.   The representative of India reiterated the response pro vided at the previous meeting of 
the TBT Committee.39 As regards risk perception on health ground s, the entire pipe line for water 
production including joints after reverse osmosis was required to be made of stainless steel in case 
of packaged drinking water  units. There were more than 5 ,500 man ufacturers with valid BIS 
licenc es in India. Similarly for the manufacture  of utensils and kitchen appliances as per 
IS14756:2017, only 6 stainless steel grades covered under IS 5522:2014, IS 15997:2012 were 
permitted to date, taking into account the culinary practices in India.  
2.138.   Further, factory inspections were essential, including for the steel mills with ISO 9001 
quality management system in place. The licence was granted , or inclusion in the existing scope of 
the licence was permitted , for the grade designations, sizes and varieties, specified in the standard 
only, after ensuring that the manufacturer had similar  manufacturing and testing facilities . 
2.139.    His delegation explained that the Indian standards defined the per mitted dimensions for 
stainless steel sheet, plate and strip for manufacture of utensils and kitchen appliances. On the 
other hand, there was no restriction on the dimensions of stainless steel covered under IS 6911 as 
                                                
37 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 477  (unde r dates raised and references) . 
38 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 486  (under dates raised and references) . 
39 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.100, G/TBT/M/72, para 3.158, G/TB T/M/71, para 2.185.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 24 - 
 
  the said standard covered the stainle ss steel requirements for general engineering purpose s and 
not for speciality products. Further, there were no restrictions on the surface finishes in all the 
three standards for the purpose i.e., IS 5522, IS 6911 and IS 15997. India looked forward to 
discussing any issues bilaterally should  clarification be required.  
2.3.4.22   India — Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) 
Regulations, 2015, G/TBT/N/IND/51 (IMS ID 49440) 
2.140.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns reg arding India's 
Alcoholic Beverages Standards Regulations . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/49 5. 
2.141.   The representative of Japan  shared the concerns raised by the EU and noted that it had 
subm itted comments to India's TBT Enquiry Point on 20 February 2018. In this respect, Japan 
asked India to provide the revised draft text taking into account Members' comments and also 
asked India to reply to the comments Japan had submitted to India's TBT Enq uiry Point.  
2.142.   The representative of India recalled responses provided in previous Committee meetings .41 
Since then, his delegation had bilaterally  passed on written responses of FSSAI to the concerned 
delegations, including to some of the queries raised by the EU during the November 2017 meeting. 
He also said that the Regulation might come into force six months after the date of final 
notification. Finally, he stated that the questions raised by Japan at the present meeting would be 
responded to shortly.  
2.3.4.23   Indonesia — Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 (IMS ID 50242) 
2.143.   The representative of the United States  reiterated  concerns raised in previous meetings.43 
The US was disappointed in the recent update from Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA) that 
Indonesia  would not allow a staged implementation of the Halal Law through 2024.  Given the 
broad scope of the l aw, th e US requested that the Government o f Indonesia provide sufficient 
transition time for stakeholders to provide feedback on, understand, and comply with 
requirements.  She also noted that the lack of transparency regarding the draft regulations raised 
serious concerns and undermined  confidence  that the measure would  be implemented in a fair and 
trade -facilitating manner.  Adhering to these core transparency practices would  help ensure that 
exporters adequately underst ood Indonesia 's requirements an d that Indonesian consumers had  
access to produc ts they prefer red. 
2.144.   The representative of the European Union  continued to have serious concerns with  regard 
to the Indonesian Halal Product Guarantee Law No 33 . The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/49 6. 
2.145.   The representative of  Australia  reiterated previously raised concerns .44 His delegation 
asked Indonesia to confirm that existing halal certification systems would  continue to be 
recognised by Indonesia.  Australia respectfull y maintained its position that Australian -based halal 
certifiers should be able to provide halal certification for establishments across Australia.  His 
delegation was aware that state-based restrictions on certifiers were  not in place in other countries 
that export ed halal products to Indonesia. Therefore, Indonesia 's policy of l imiting approved 
Islamic organiz ations to providing halal certification only in the state in which they were 
headquartered was unduly  restrictive and, moreover, did  not serve to inc rease the halal 
assurance.  Accordingly, Australia requested  that this restriction be removed.  
2.146.   The representative of Brazil  supported the concerns raised by the EU and the US  and 
reiterated concerns raised in previous meetings .45  
                                                
40 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 494  (under dates raised and references) . 
41 /TBT/M/73, para. 2.123, G/TBT/M/72, para. 3.163, G/TBT/M/71, par a. 2.197. 
42 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 502 (under dates raised and references) . 
43 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.106, G/TBT/M/72, para. 3.168, G/TBT/M/71, para. 2.204.  
44 G/TBT/M/72, para 3.170.  
45 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.107, G/TBT/M/72, para 3.169.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 25 - 
 
  2.147.   The representative of Indonesia  reiterated  respons es provided in previous Committee 
meeting s. Her delegation explained that the implementing regulation of the Law Number 33/2014  
was being discussed among related government institutions to consider important issues such as 
mecha nism of implementation, mechanism to differentiate between halal and non -halal products, 
process of certification and registration, etc.  She also explained that as a new institution that was 
formed towards the end of 2017, the Agency of Halal Product Assur ance (BPJPH) would need 
adjustment, cooperation, and coordination to ensure effective implementation of the law, including 
implementing arrangement with all stakeholders at the central and regional level.  
2.3.4.24   China — Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow -up Formula, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1165 (IMS ID 49346)  
2.148.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding China — 
Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow -up Formula . The full statement is contained 
in G/TBT/W/497 . 
2.149.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the China  Food and Drug Administration 
(CFDA) for providing additional information on Decree 26 over the past year, and for showing 
flexibility with regard to implementation dates for registration of infa nt formula and other "special 
foods". The United States supported other WTO Members ' interventions on this issue , and sought 
confirmation that trade would  not be unnecessarily disrupted. A number of is sues still require d 
clarification, and her delegation  hoped that China could  work with the United States and other 
Members to avoid any trade disruptions.  
2.150.   The representative of Japan  shared concerns raised by other Members. Japan was of the 
view that  this measure would be more trade restrictive than necessary and would lea d to a loss of 
sales opportunities for manufacturer s. China was therefore expected to reconsider the measure.  
2.151.   The representative of China  said that in respect of  registration, China on the one hand  
carrie d out review and approval works strictly following the rules, and on the other hand, ma de 
efforts to secure smooth transition and stable supplies in the market. As of 23 February 2017, the 
CFDA had approved 1138 formula in 148 enterprises,  comprising 864 formula in  102 domestic 
enterprises  and 274 formula in 46 overseas enterprises . She added that 106 enterprises ha d 
registered 3 series 9 formula . The formula approved account ed for 74.2% of total for mula 
accepted, covering most domestic and overseas brands. For further information , Members were 
invited to  refer to CFDA 's website.  
2.3.4.25   Russian Federation – Rules of cement certification G/TBT/N/RUS/48, 
G/TBT/N/RUS/49(IMS ID 49747) 
The representative of Ukraine  reiterated previously raised concerns .48  2.152.   
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding Russia's 2.153.   
rule of cement certification . The full statement is contained  in G/TBT/W/498 . 
The representative of Mexico  reiterated previously raised concerns .49 She reiterated that 2.154.   
her delegation believed that Russia could be infringing Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 of the TBT 
Agreement, as applying a conformity assessment procedure to imported cement had 
discriminatory and  trade -restrictive effects and resulted in higher costs for importers of the 
product. She urged Russia to take into account comments made by countries affected by the 
measure and requested clarification regarding the application of the conformity assessmen t 
procedure to shipments of cement from third countries destined for countries in the Eurasian 
region.  
                                                
46 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 493  (under dates raised and references).  
47 For pr evious statements follow the thread under IMS ID 497  (under dates raised and references) . 
48 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.111  
49 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.112, G/TBT/M/72, para3.178, G/TBT/M/71, paras 2. 218-2.219.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 26 - 
 
  The representative of the Russia  Federation  recalled statements made during previous 2.155.   
Committee meetings50, explaining  the reasons for mandatory certification of cement. The practice 
of GOST -R application had shown necessity for some changes. In order to implement them, draft 
amendments No. 2 to the GOST -R had been developed and published on the web site of the 
Federal Ag ency for Technical Regulation and Metrology. Public consultations on the draft  had 
ended on 1 March 2018. Now the draft was being finalized taking into account the comments 
received during public consultations. The document, inter alia , provide d for elimin ation of 
additional inspection control. Russia continued to analyse the practice of application of cement 
certification rules in light of the concerns of interested Members.  
2.3.4.26   Egypt — Manufacturer Registration System (Decree No. 43/2016 and Decree 
No. 992/2 015) G/TBT/N/EGY/114, G/TBT/N/EGY/115 (IMS ID 50551) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the 2.156.   
implementation of the Egyptian decrees. The  full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/499 . 
2.157.   The representative of the United States  supported the concerns raised by other Members 
and remain ed concerned about the lack of transparency concerning this measure, as well a s its 
application, which appeared to be unnecessarily b urdensome for US exporters.  
2.158.   The representative of Switzerland  reiterated  concerns raised in previous meetings.52 In 
addition, his delegation remained concerned about the non -transparent application of the quality 
certification and registration requirements.  The lack of time limits for the registration process and 
the following decree by the Minister of Foreign Trade was an important additional burden for 
industry, as the approval of registration requests remained uncertain and progressed slowly. The 
renewal of registrations also contributed to the problems of industry. These requirements had  
driven Swiss companies out of the Egyptian market.  Finally, h e thanked Egypt for the bilateral 
exchanges and looked forward to further cooperation on the issue.  
2.159.   The representative of Canada  reiterated concerns  raised in previous meetings53 regarding 
the registration requirements for overseas factories manufacturing toys, supported the conce rns 
raised by other Members, and looked forward to Egypt's  response.  
2.160.   The rep resentative of Egypt  reiterated  responses  provided in previous meetings.54 In 
addition to the previous explanations regarding the transparency commitments, her delegation 
stated that once the registration process was finalized, the concerned companies were duly 
informed and the list of approved companies  was made available at the database of the General 
Organization of Exports and Imports Control for reference by economic operators.  With regard to 
the complication of the registration process , she explained t hat t he documents required for 
registering any factory or company include d a certificate of the legal status, the trademark owned, 
and a certificate to p rove that the factory implemented  a quality control system issued by any 
conformity assessment body acc redited by entities that were in turn accredited by ILAC or IAF. 
These required documents were documents that any credible entity should hold and it was 
intentional not to require any specific quality control system certificate in order not to create any 
unnecessary barrier to trade. Besides, no renewal of the registration was needed as long as the 
documents submitted were valid.  Lastly, she urged those who had specific concerns to 
communicate them to her delegation . She had taken note of the comments made in the meeting 
and would convey them to capital for response in due course.  
                                                
50 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.113, G/TBT/M/72, para 3.181.  
51 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 505  (under dates raised and references) . 
52 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.144, G/TBT/M/72, para. 3.184.  
53 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.145  
54 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.148, G/TBT/M/72, para. 3.186.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 27 - 
 
  2.3.4.27   Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi — East African Community 
alcoholic beverage standards , G/TBT/N/KEN/472 -477, G/TBT/N/KEN/479, 
G/TBT/N/K EN/482 -483, G/TBT/N/KEN/556 -561 G/TBT/N/KEN/563 -565 
G/TBT/N/KEN/567, G/TBT/N/UGA/434 -435, G/TBT/N/UGA/437 -441 (IMS ID 510 and 
51955) 
2.161.   The delegation of the European Union  expressed support to the Members of the East 
African Community (EAC) in their efforts t o ensure the quality standards of alcoholic beverages 
consumed in their territories.  The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/500 . 
2.162.   The representative of the United States  reiterated her delegatio n's appreciation for the 
efforts by Kenya and other EAC countries to notify their revised draft regional EAC alcohol 
standards and for providing the opportunity for Members to comment. She thanked Uganda for 
providing written responses to US comments. Her delegation was of the understanding that EAC 
members were still revising the draft standards following comments from the US and other trading 
partners. A status update on those revisions and on anticipated timelines for completion was 
requested.   
2.163.   The repre sentative of Kenya  (on behalf of EAC) reiterated  the response provided during 
previous Committee meeting .56 In addition he reported that the public review comments had been 
compiled, reviewed and concluded in a regional meeting of the Technical Committee on  Alcoholic 
and Non -alcoholic Beverages, held from 5 -9 March 2018 in Nairobi, Kenya. In this meeting, the 
standards had been released to proceed to the approval process after which they would be 
gazetted as East Africa Standards. The EAC partner states woul d thereafter adopt the gazetted 
standards as National Standards, thereby making them available for use by the stakeholders. 
Kenya was ready for further engagement with the delegations of the EU, US and others on this 
issue.  
2.3.4.28   European Union — Quality Schemes  for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, 
G/TBT/N/EU/139, G/TBT/N/EU/139/Add.1 ( IMS ID 51257) 
The representative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns with the 2.164.   
recent registration of the name "danbo" as a protected geographical indication (PGI).58 The US had 
found the consultation process unsatisfactory and lacked sufficient transparency, such as an 
explanation as to how the Commission considered the existing Codex standard. Accordingly, she 
asked what the grounds were for rejecti ng an application where c oncerns had been raised by WTO 
Members producing  generically named cheeses.  
2.165.   The US considered  this a TBT matter and disagreed with the previous EU claim that t his 
should be discussed in a GI -focused forum. The EU had correctly noti fied its quality schemes 
regulation under the TBT Agreement precisely because of its TBT implications, such as the labelling 
elements and r elevant international standards, i n particular the Codex standard for danbo, which 
had existed for over 50 years, and  which Codex members, including the EU, had reconfirmed in 
2007, 2008 and 2010.  
2.166.   The Council 's own decision on the EU's accession to the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
affirmed that "Codex standards have acquired increased legal relevance by virtue of the re ference 
made to Codex in the WTO Agreements and the presumption of conformity which is conferred on 
national measures when t hey are based on such standards ". The EU and its m ember States also 
supported and agreed to the Codex Committee for Milk and Milk Pr oduct Individual Cheese 
standards, containing labelling provisions under section 7 , preserving the generic nature and use 
of the names of these cheeses. Danbo was one of these cheeses, which underwent a rigorous 
review to prove its use in public domain and  international trade. She asked if the Commission 's 
view of the legal relevance of Codex standards had changed since the publication of the Council 
                                                
55 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS I D 510  and IMS ID 519  (under dates raised and 
references) . 
56 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.138  
57 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 51 2 (under dates raised and references) . 
58 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.129.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Decision. She also requested a status update on the Havarti application where the US hoped there 
would be a different outcome.  
The representative of Uruguay  raised concerns with the  Quality Schemes for Agricultural 2.167.   
Products and Foodstuffs . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/469 .  
The representat ive of the European Union  responded to the concerns The full state ment is 2.168.   
contained in G/TBT/W/501 . 
2.3.4.29   The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pen ghu, Kinmen and Matsu – Draft 
of the Organic Agriculture Act, G/TBT/N/TPKM/225, G/TBT/N/TPKM/225 Add.1 -2 
(IMS  ID 51159) 
2.169.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the Draft 
Organic Agriculture Act . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/502 . 
The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 2.170.   
Matsu  explained that the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act had been  drafted by incorporating 
comments from all stakeholders. This draft was still under review by legislato rs and no further 
information on the status of this process was availabl e beyond what had already been expressed in 
the previous meeting. Chinese Taipei invited Members to consult the statements it had made in 
previous meetings, including its explanations on the extension of the grace period from one to two 
years as well as  on the two routes the draft now provide d for trading partners to export their 
organic products to the Chinese Taipei market . 
2.3.4.30   China — National Standards on Limits of Volatile Organic Comp ounds for 
Furniture, G/TBT/N/CHN/1094, G/TBT/N/CHN/1095, G/TBT/N/CHN/1096 
(IMS  ID 50960) 
2.171.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding China's 
National Standards on Limits of V olatile Organic Compounds for Furniture. The ful l statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/503 . 
The representative of China  informed the Committee that the six measures contained in 2.172.   
"Deepening the Refor m Programme of Standardization W ork" had simplified and integrated all 
mandatory standards, including those related to the furniture industry. On 14 January 2017, the 
China National Standardization Administration Committee had published the conclusion of the 
simplification and integration o f Chinese mandatory standards contained in the notice "Notification 
of the issuance of conclusion of the simplifying and integrating of Chinese mandatory standards" 
(No.4 document of SAC in 2017). In this conclusion, the "Limit of volatile organic compound s and 
migration of heavy metal of wood based furniture", "Upholstered furniture - Limit of volatile 
organic compounds, decomposable aromatic amine and flame retardant of mattress" and 
"Upholstered furniture - Limit of volatile organic compounds and decompo sable aromatic amine of 
sofa" had not yet been included. As a result, these three national standards had not yet been 
published and implemented. According to the relevant requirements of "Notification of completing 
the follow -up work for the conclusion of the simplifying and integrating of mandatory standards" 
(No. 464 document of Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and 
Information Technology in 2017), the integrating and development work of standards was 
ongoing.  
2.3.4.31   Korea — Amendment of  the Notifications on Warning Messages on Smoking 
and Drinking  (IMS ID 51861) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding Korea's 2.173.   
amendment of the notifications on warning messages on smoking and drinking. The full stateme nt 
is contained in G/TBT/W/504 . 
                                                
59 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 511  (under dates raised and ref erences) . 
60 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 509  (under dates raised and references) . 
61 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 518  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 29 - 
 
  The representative of Japan  reiterated concerns raised in previous meetings62 and 2.174.   
requested that Korea reply to the comments submitted to the  Korean TBT Enquiry point  on 
20 February 2018.  
The representatives of New Zealand , Australia  and Chile reiterated concerns raised in 2.175.   
previous meetings and supported the concerns raised by other Members.63  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  appreciated that Members understood the 2.176.   
purpose of the regulation. He informed the Committee that imported alcoholic beverages, 
containing the old warning labels  that had cleared customs before 8 February 2018 , could be sold 
to customers . This would  solve any stock problems. Korea would continue consultations  with 
Members and stakeholders to resolve all concerns in a transparent manner.  
2.3.4.32   Kazakhstan, Russian Federation — The amendments No. 2 to the Technical 
Regulation of the Customs Union on Safety of Toys (TÐ ÌÑ 008/2011) GTBT/N/KAZ/7, 
G/TBT/N/RUS/ 73 (IMS  ID 51464) 
The representative Ukraine  reiterated concerns raised in the previous meetings.65 2.177.   
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the 2.178.   
amendments to the Safety Toy EAE U Technical Regulation. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/505  
The representative of the United  States said that, during the November 2017 Committee 2.179.   
meeting, the Kazakh delegate indicated t hat Kazakhstan was continuing to take comments 
received during public consultation and during the TBT Committee meetings into account. The 
Kazakh delegate noted that Kazakh agencies were considering the ISO standard. She requested 
clarification on which go vernment agency was overseeing the process, and any update on the 
possibility of replacing the psychological and pedagogical criteria with age grading requirements 
based on the ISO standard. The US suggested that Kazakhstan explore less trade restrictive 
alternatives to achieve its objective. For example, age grading — a globally -recognized practice 
cited in international standards — could be applied to ensure children's access to toys that were 
appropriate and safe for particular stages of physical and men tal development. As noted in 
ASTM  F963-16 Annex  A1, "age grading is intended to provide point of sale guidance to consumers 
for the selection of appropriate toys for children with respect to average abilities, interests of 
various age groups, and safety as pects of the toys themselves." The US also requested 
Kazakhstan to consider the unintended consequences of implementing the measure, as amended, 
because it could potentially eliminate toys representing children with disabilities from the market. 
The US sup ported the Eurasian Economic Commission's desire to protect the psychological well -
being of children and welcomed continued discussions with EEC members to achieve this objective 
in a way that does not unnecessarily restrict trade.  
The representative of Canada echoed the concerns raised by other WTO Members.  2.180.   
The representative of Kazakhstan  drew Ukraine's attention to the fact that its comments 2.181.   
referred to the existing provision of the technical regulation which was adopted in 2011. She also 
said that the p ublic consultations on the draft technical regulation took place in July -August 2010. 
No comments or questions from state bodies or private sector of Ukraine were received in the 
course of that public consultation. Certification of conformity of toys has a lways been applied in 
Kazakhstan, even before the adoption of the customs union technical regulation on safety of toys. 
Kazak authorities have never registered any problem with obtaining conformity certificates for 
products originating from Ukraine. In thi s respect, she noted that the TBT Agreement did not 
preclude a Member from choosing a type of conformity assessment scheme which it considered 
appropriate in ensuring its legitimate objective. Kazakhstan referred, in this respect, to its previous 
answers m ade in the previous TBT Committee meeting. With respect to the questions of EU and 
US, Kazakhstan noted that there has been no substantive discussion within the EAEU working 
                                                
62 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.160.  
63 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.161, G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.162 and G/TBT/M/72, para . 3.212 , respectively.  
64 For previous s tatements follow the thread under IMS ID 514  (under dates raised and references) . 
65 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.169.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 30 - 
 
  group since March 2017. During this time, Kazakhstan's relevant government agencie s have been 
studying the ISO standard in this field. Kazakhstan could, preliminary, say that there was positive 
consideration of the possibility to implement this ISO standard. Among other aspects, the internal 
discussion was being held on how the ISO stan dard could be applied or adopted into Kazakhstan's 
legal framework.  
2.3.4.33   Russian Federation — Medical Devices , G/TBT/N/RUS/51, G/TBT/N/RUS/52, 
G/TBT/N/RUS/53, G/TBT/N/RUS/55 (IMS ID 52066) 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the 2.182.   
Russian Federation's four notifications on medical devices. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/506 . 
The representative of Ukraine  said that the  requirements of the draft a greement needed to 2.183.   
be justified on the basis of provision of a scientifically substantiated clarification concerning the 
application of the sticker conditions for exporters compared with domestic producers, which related 
to the man datory state registration. State registration of medical devices was based on the 
examination of safety, quality and effectiveness of medical devices, which were conducted by 
expert authorities defined by the member state of the Eurasian Economic Union (EA EU). The 
mandatory requirement for applicants to register on the territory of member states of the Eurasian 
Economic Union put national producers and producers from other WTO Members in unequal 
positions. Application of conformity assessment procedures dep ended directly on the justified 
risks, i.e. the higher risk, the harder the procedure. The use of certification as a conformity 
assessment procedure by the Russian Federation showed that there were high risks in the case of 
imported products, as opposed to  the case in many WTO Members where product declarations 
were applied in case of low risks. The reference of the representative of the Russian Federation to 
the existence  of a transition period of the draft a greement before its entry into force was not 
sufficient to leve l the playing field. The draft a greement specified requirements for 
implementation, installation, repair and disposal of medical products, which were not in line with 
the requirements of international practices. Ukraine called on the Russian  Federation to remove 
unjustified technical barriers to trade and bring the provisions of the draft documents on medical 
devices in line with the requirements of international practice.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled that in order to  establish a single 2.184.   
market of medical devices in the EAEU, the relevant treaties had entered into force on 6 May 
2017. However, their entry into force did not mean significant changes in the existing system of 
registration. Producers and importers could re gister medical devices either in the national system 
of registration or in the system of the EAEU. Registration certificates issued in Russia would be 
valid only on the territory of Russia. Registration certificates issued in accordance with the rules of 
the EAEU would operate on the territory of all countries of the EAEU. The transitional regime would 
last until 31 December 2021. In 2022, the Russian registration system would be completely 
replaced by the supranational system of the EAEU. However, national  registration certificates 
issued previously would be valid until 31 December 2025, if not otherwise indicated in them. 
During the transitional period until 31 December 2021, a special working group of the Eurasian 
Economic Commission would continue to wor k with the aim of taking into account all comments 
from stakeholders. In addition, with respect to the concerns regarding the timelines of expert 
evaluations, the normal period of expert evaluation in the EAEU was 114 days while the maximum 
period was 337 days. Such an extension from 114 to 337 days could occur only if a manufacturer 
or applicant used its right to request a temporary suspension of expert evaluation, for example, in 
order meet the deadlines for submission of documents. Russia took note of th e concerns raised by 
interested Members and was ready to continue working with them on the matter.  
                                                
66 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 520  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 31 - 
 
  2.3.4.34   Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic — Pharmaceutical products - 
Resolution 1314 of the Government of the Russian Federation on determining 
compli ance of medicinal products' manufacturers with the requirements of Good 
Manufacturing Practice (non -notified); draft decisions of the Board of the Eurasian 
Economic Union,   G/TBT/N/RUS/54, G/TBT/N/RUS/58, G/TBT/N/RUS/63 
(IMS  ID 52167) 
2.185.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated previously raised concerns and made 
further requests for information regarding GMP requirements for pharmaceutical products. The full 
statement is available in G/TBT/W /507.  
2.186.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian system of GMP 
inspection fully complied  with international standards and recommendations in this area . The State 
Institute of Drugs and Good Practices, subordinate to the Ministry of  Industry and Tra de of the 
Russian Federation, was  the body authorized to conduct GMP inspections. The inspection s chedule 
for foreign producers was  published on the  website of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the 
Russian Federation and include d more than 300 inspections between February and August of this 
year. 
2.3.4.35   Ireland — Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015, G/TBT/N/IRL/2 (IMS ID 51668) 
2.187.   The representative of Mexico  reiterated previously raised concerns  69 related primarily to 
the labelling requiremen ts of the measure, such as the inclusion of health warnings with no 
scientific basis, and the setting of minimum prices . Mexico believed that instead of enacting or 
promoting a measure entailing a trade restriction, the Irish Government could rethink the s olution 
to the problem of alcohol consumption among its population by implementing public health 
programmes and media campaigns. Her delegation believed that these actions would allow the 
legitimate objective to be achieved while avoiding restrictive and b urdensome labelling 
requirements, in accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. She stressed the importance 
that Ireland take into consideration the positions of the countries affected by this measure, 
deemed to be extremely restrictive and in viola tion of the principles of international trade, as it 
clearly created an unnecessary barrier to trade. Mexico was aware that this Bill had been approved 
by the Irish senate in December  2017 and notified again to the EU in early 2018. Consequently, 
Mexico re quested that the EU report on: (i) the status of the measure at the European Commission 
and its notification to the WTO, and  (ii) the time -frame for the public consultation.  
The representative of Argentina  raised  concern about the measure, which amended ce rtain 2.188.   
regulations for alcoholic beverages by incorporating additional labelling and marketing 
specifications, with a view to reducing alcohol consumption to 9.1 litres of pure alcohol per capita. 
He recalled that once the proposed amendments were adopted, the marketing of alcohol products 
in the Republic of Ireland would require the use of labels warning of the direct link between alcohol 
and fatal cancers. In addition, the proposed changes introduced limits to alcohol product 
advertising, including restric tions on television and in print media and public spaces. Argentina 
believed that the requirement to display warning messages on the direct link between alcohol 
consumption and cancer in a uniform way for beverages with different alcoholic strengths, witho ut 
distinguishing between abusive and harmful consumption on the one hand and responsible 
consumption on the other, was disproportionate in relation to the legitimate aim of protecting 
human health and could cause unnecessary barriers to international trad e and serious harm to 
many production sectors.  
He claimed that wine, for example, which was a noble product of low alcoholic strength, 2.189.   
would undergo stigmatization and loss of image. Warnings, he said, should be aimed at preventing 
abusive behaviour by co nsumers and not merely consumption. Argentina considered that the 
legitimate objective of reducing alcohol consumption per capita could be achieved without 
disproportionate labelling requirements, in accordance with Article 2.2 of the TBT  Agreement. It 
could be achieved through campaigns to raise public awareness of the harmful effects of excessive 
alcohol consumption on health, without negatively affecting such products' image and marketing, 
                                                
67 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 521  (under dates raised and references) . 
68 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 516 (under dates raised and references) . 
69 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.165  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 32 - 
 
  and/or through labelling recommending moderate consumption, so as  not to restrict international 
trade beyond what is necessary to attain the legitimate objective. He stressed that the health 
imperative should be to end addictive behaviour; excessive alcohol consumption could not be 
resolved by labelling systems, but rat her a change in habits. Argentina therefore requested that 
Ireland review the Bill, align it with WTO rules and keep Members informed about its entry into 
force and implementation.  
The representative of the United States  said that o n 10 January 2018 and ag ain on 2.190.   
14 February 2018, her delegation had  written  to the WTO TBT Enquiry Points in the EU and Ireland 
asking Ireland to notify the amended version of its Public Health (Alcohol) 2015 me asure to the 
WTO TBT Committee. The US deemed n otification appropriate because the measure ha d been 
substantially amended, such as by a requirement that 30% of a label  be covered by health 
warnings and recalled Committee recommendations for Members to notify substantially re -drafted 
measures prior to adoption or e ntry int o force. Ireland' s responses indicated that a copy of the 
measure would be provide d upon enactment.  She noted, however, that on 19 January  2018 
Ireland had notified the amended bill to the European Commission under its Technical Regulation 
Information System (TRIS) procedure,  provid ing the Commission and member States a three -
month comment period . She explained that all WTO M embers should have an opportunity to 
comment on the same basis as afforded to other EU m embers, as other Member were no less 
impacted. She stated that t he bill, if enacted, would impact US trade – and that of other WTO 
Members – by requiri ng exporters to produce Ireland -specific labels , impact ing their ability to 
reallocate product in the European marke t. The US therefore reitera ted its request for Ireland to 
notify the amended bill in order to give trading partners the opportunity to comment before 
finalization.  
The representative of Chile echoed the concerns raised by other Members regarding 2.191.   
minimum pricing and labelling.  
The re presentative of New Zealand  acknowledge d and support ed Ireland' s right to 2.192.   
introduce new regulations to address specific public health concerns , namely the harmful use of 
alcohol, but shared other Members'  concerns that the additional specifications to labe lling 
requirements proposed were more burdensome than necessary to achieve a legitimate regulatory 
objective. New Zealand requested an update on when the amendments to the bill would  be 
notified to the TBT Committee.  
The representative of Guatemala  express ed its interest and systemic concern regarding the 2.193.   
measure and requested information on the internal EU process relating to the Irish regulation.  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 2.194.   
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/508 . 
2.3.4.36   China — Cybersecurity Law (IMS ID 52670) 
The representative of the United States  reiterated concerns raised during the previous 2.195.   
Committee meeting .71 Her delegation stated that other Members had rules to ensure security of 
critical infrastructure, but did so without stifling international competition. The fact that China was 
now expanding the Multi -Level Protection  Scheme (MLPS) to include a wide array  of commercial 
sectors that did not constitute critical infrastructure raised further concerns. The US requested 
further clarification as to the linkage between MLPS and the Cybersecurity Classified Protection 
Scheme referenced in the Cybersecurity Law.  She noted that the US and other Members had 
commented on what appeared to be an MLPS -related draft standard, issued by China on 
25 January 2018, "Information Security Technology – Guidelines for Grading of Classified 
Cybersecurity Protection. " She asked whet her China intended to notify this measure to the TBT 
Committee and allow for additional stakeholder comments.  
The representative of Japan  reiterated her delegation's concern and strong interest with  2.196.   
regard to the Cybersecurity Law that entered into force on 1 June 2017 and recalled China's 
statement that it would not require enterprises to use Chinese technology or domestic products  
                                                
70 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 526  (under dates raised and references) . 
71 G/TBT/M/73, paras. 2.184 -2.186.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 33 - 
 
  and to hand in their source code to the government. Her delegation asked whether or not China 
had issued any guidelines or r egulations based on this law, which prescribed the clear explanation 
of terms "secure and controllable " or "secure and trustworthy ", as had been requested by Japan. If 
these definitions had not been stipulated, China was again requested to expressly provid e the 
definition of these terms in the law or regulations in order to enhance transparency and 
predictability of the law. I n addition, as Japan and other M embers repeatedly requested, Japan 
asked China to clarify definitions, requirements and scope of nati onal standards or conformity 
assessment procedures subject to the law. Japan also hoped that China would implement these 
measures in a transparent manner.  
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding the new 2.197.   
Cybersecurity Law. The full state ment is contained in G/TBT/W/509 . 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  expressed his delegation's support for the 2.198.   
comments made by previous delegations and reiterated its statemen t expressed in the previous 
Commit tee meeting in particular with regard to the comments made on Article 35, 24, and 58 of 
the law.  
The representative of The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 2.199.   
Matsu  stated that certain articles, in particular Articles 22, 23, 35 and 37 , in the Cybersecurity Law 
might create unnecessary obstacles to trade for information service providers or product suppliers 
of other WTO Members due to the lack of clarity of methods, definition, and application scope in its 
implementation. Besides, it w as not clear how the technical specifications would be applied, such 
as whether the source codes were required to be provided in the product inspection procedures, 
what would be considered as "critical " in its information infrastructure, etc. Given the iss ue was 
technically complex and would cause potential technical trade barriers to market access, his 
delegations requested China to undertake thorough discussion in order to enhance its transparency 
and predictability.  
The representative of Australia  supported the concerns raised by other Members and 2.200.   
reiterated concerns raised during the previous Committee meeting.72  
The representative of China  said that  opening -up was the basic policy of China, that is, 2.201.   
China's door was always open: this was also the  principle of China's cyber security policy. The 
purpose of this law was to ensure the cyber space sovereignty and national security, to safeguard 
the public interests, rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations in China. 
There  was therefore no intention of restricting the market access of foreign enterprises, 
technologies in China. At present, the relevant authorities were drafting the follow -up rules and 
regulations in accordance with the requirements in Cyber security law. So me were already 
completed, while some others were still in the preparatory process. After the release of the Law, 
more than 30 meetings for information exchange, consultation, and introduction were held, and in 
the meantime, the follow -up polices, standard s were also open for comments. Regarding the 
definition of "secure and controllable", China again made the following clarifications. Firstly, data 
was controllable for the users. The product or service providers were not to use their product or 
service to illegally obtain users ' data. Secondly, equipment was controllable for the users. 
Providers were not to illegally control users ' equipment. Th irdly, to guarantee that users had  
choices , providers were not to operate a monopoly or seek illegal interest by making use of users ' 
reliance on the product or service, such as  stopping providing safety technical support without a 
justifiable reaso n or force users to upgrade. As regards certain terms, China explained that the se 
terms were not created by China. There  was no distinction between domestic and foreign 
companies  as all enterprises had to abide by these requirements . She also stated that China 
attached great value to IP and its effective protection. China was therefore against any behaviours 
that would impa ir the IP of enterprises. China would not therefore require enterprises to hand  in 
their source code to the government.  
                                                
72 G/TBT/M/73, paras. 2.192.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 34 - 
 
  2.3.4.37   China — Tentative Administrative Rules on Enterprises Average Fuel 
Consumption and New Energy Vehicle Credits and Administration Regulat ion on the 
Access of New Energy Vehicle Manufactures and Products, G/TBT/N/CHN/1187, 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1188 (IMS ID 52773) 
The representative of Japan , referring to G/TBT/N/CHN/1187, said  that the final 2.202.   
Administrative R ules published on 28 September 2017 were still of concern to the  Japanese 
automotive industry. In particular, Japan recognized that China had not announced the quota for 
the new energy vehicle (NEV) production after 2021. Japan requested China to allow sufficient 
time and opportunities to discuss wi th other M embers when China established the requirements for 
2021. Japan appreciated that the final rules reflected not only the Chinese market trends, 
government subsidy, the production capacity of each automobile company and the development of 
EV chargin g infrastructure, but also the comments from other members, including the comments 
of Japan. Meanwhile, this Administrative rules imposed production of NEVs on the companies. 
Japan sincerely requested China to carefully consider supply and demand balance w hen 
implementing the Administrative rules.  
The representative of the United States  said that the principal issue related to China 's 2.203.   
initial draft was the short timeframe allowed for compliance.  The final rules addressed compliance 
for the years 2019 and 20 20. China had indicated plans to update these rules for 2021 and 
following years.  However, details had not been made public. The US requested China to make 
public its plans for these future credits or postpone further changes to reasonable lead -time that 
would take into account the time typically needed by automakers for vehicle development and 
production cycles, which was roughly four to five years.  The US official response to 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1187 was a request for a three -year delay in implementing the measur e to take into 
account new motor vehicle development and production cycles. The delegation stressed that the 
US was well below any of those thresholds and asked China to share any further details on these 
plans.  
The representative of the European Union  supported the concerns raised by other 2.204.   
delegations and welcomed the improvements introduced by China published in September 2017. 
The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/510 . 
The representative of China  said that in order to relieve the pressure on energy and 2.205.   
environment and to improve the energy conservation of passenger vehicles, the Parallel 
Administration Rules on Average Fuel Consumption an d New Energy Vehicle Credits of Passenger 
Vehicle Corporate (Parallel Administration Rules) had been released on 27 September 2017 and 
would enter into force on 1 April 2018. She explained that the Parallel Administration Rules 
adopted a parallel administr ation mechanism of two types of credits, namely average fuel 
consumption credits and NEV credits, in line with the current stage of development of the 
automobile industry in China. This administration mechanism took into account not only the 
improvement of  energy conversation of traditional automobiles but also the innovative 
development of NEVs. The rules aimed at establishing a market -oriented, long -term mechanism to 
promote the development of the energy -saving and NEV industries. She stated that the fulf ilment 
of a certain proportion of NEV credits would not be required until 2019 to allow automobile 
enterprises time for R&D for products and production layout. This requirement solicited comments 
from all parties both domestically and abroad, bearing in mi nd the current situation of the 
automobile industry. She further explained that the Parallel Administration Rules insisted on 
treating domestic and foreign enterprises equally. Since their release, major automobile 
manufacturers had expressed their support  for the rules and had actively conducted R&D and 
production layout of energy -saving and NEVs. They made efforts to improve energy conservation 
of automobiles and vigorously develop new energy vehicles to meet the requirements of the 
Parallel Administratio n Rules.  
China also stated that the Administration Regulation on the Access of New Energy Vehicle 2.206.   
Manufactures and Products (Administration Regulation) had been released on 6 January 2017 and 
entered into force on 1  July 2017 to protect public life and pro perty, improve the safety 
performance of NEVs, and promote industrial development. The Administration Regulation required 
NEV manufacturers to comprehend and master the development and manufacturing technologies 
                                                
73 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 527  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 35 - 
 
  of the NEVs they produced, which was the bas ic requirement of ensuring production consistency as 
well as the safety and quality of NEV products. Her delegation noted that the regulation was non -
discriminatory and applied to all NEV manufacturers in China and that there was no mandatory 
technology tr ansfer for foreign -invested enterprises.  
2.3.4.38   European Union — Radio Equipment Directive , G/TBT/N/EU/93  (IMS ID 52574) 
2.207.   The representative of China  said that on 22 May  2014, the European Union had issued a 
new version of the r adio equipment directive (RED), 2014/ 53/EU , in its official journal based on 
the new CE legislative framework ( Regulation No EC 765/2008 and Decision No 768/2008/EC ). 
China noted that the purpose of the new legislative framework was to ensure product safety in the 
EU market by strictly enforc ing CE marking requirements. The new RED directive would  replace 
the original radio equipment directive R&TTE 1999/5/EC . 
China further noted that on  13 June  2016, the old R&TTE directive 1999/5/EC was 2.208.   
repealed and prod ucts that were evaluated under  the old  directive were able to be  sold until 
13 June 2017.  After 13 June  2017, only wireless devices that were evaluated in accordance with 
the new RED 2014/53/EU were allowed to be sold in the EU market, China said. However, China 
explained that it  was not until 13 October 2017 that the EU had released its own list of the latest 
harmonized standards in compliance with directive 2014/53/EU in its official journal . China said 
this ha d caused great challenges for manufacture rs seeking  product certifica tion. Although the EU 
had released a list of harmonized standards, the release time of product standards lag ged far 
behind the export demand for 5G equipment.  China noted that  the EU telecommunications 
operators testing bureau need ed to import a large amou nt 5G equipment,  however, due to the 
lack of corresponding certification standar ds it was difficult for Chinese companies to send 
products to the EU , and the certification process was costly and  uncertain . China explained that 
testing bureau s often needed  the equipment to last for one to two  years , and therefore it was not 
possible to send test equipment , since customs authorities required test equipment to be  return ed 
every six months.  
While the EU considered the harmonized standards as voluntary, China no ted that 2.209.   
according to the Article 5.1 of the RED guide "the application of harmonized standards has the 
advantage of giving presumption of conformity with the corresponding essential requirements that 
they aim to cover. " China said that this appeared to re cognize the harmonized standards as 
mandatory. According to the RED guide, if a manufacturer chose not to follow a harmonized 
standard or only partly, there was an obligation to prove that the radio equipment was in 
conformity with the essential requiremen ts by other means and to provide a full technical 
justification. This could lead to high costs and long delays in certification if harmonized standards 
were not yet adopted.  
First, China asked  whether the EU ha d a plan to pass the 5G equipment certificatio n 2.210.   
standards as soon as possible , to protect the smooth market req uirements of the testing bureau;  
or to consider 5G eq uipment as specific equipment,  and cancel the requirement that the 
corresponding test equipment must be returned every six months. Second , China requested 
clarification from the  EU as to  the potential mandatory feature of the voluntary harmonized 
standards.  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised.  The full 2.211.   
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/511 . 
2.3.4.39   European Union — Organic production and labelling - Maté (erva -mate) 
(IMS  ID 52475) 
2.212.   The representative of Brazil  thanked the EU for addressing their concerns and for including 
erva mate i n the list of organic products in the final version of the normative COM/2014/180. 
Brazil was also pleased to hear about the conclusion of the talks among the Parliament, the 
Commission and the Council, paving the way for the adoption of the normative. He asked when 
the legislation would finally be adopted and whether there were any specific transition provisions 
                                                
74 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 525  (under dates raised and references) . 
75 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 524  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 36 - 
 
  that could apply to erva mate before the new legislation entered into force. If this was not the 
case, he wondered whether the EU would be open to  establishing a working group or bilateral 
dialogue to address an interim solution to address this issue.  
2.213.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/512 . 
2.3.4.40   China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures 
for the Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and Services  (IMS  ID 53376) 
 The representative of the Republic of Korea  said that Article 3  of the dra ft implementing 2.214.   
measures  required  a security screening assessment by a third party organization. Her delegation 
considered that this could lead to an infringement of intellectual property, given the absence of a 
clause protect ing intellectual property in c ase of certification by third party institutions. Korea 
therefore request ed that  China add such a  clause to this article to prevent leak s of confidential 
business information . Korea also requested clarification of the scope and procedure of the 
cooperation of network security evaluation outlined in Article 12 which, in her delegation's view, 
were not specifically or clearly defined  and could potentially lead the government to demand 
companies excessive  disclos ure of technical information.  
 The representatives of the United States  and Japan  reiterated previously raised 2.215.   
concerns .77  
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding China's 2.216.   
cybersecurit y review of network products and services.  The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/513 . 
The representative of China  reiterated the response provided at the previous Committee 2.217.   
meeting.78 It is common practice internationally to improve secure and controllable level of 
network products and services to safeguard the cyber security. Many members have adopted the 
similar reviews. Cybersecurity Review of Network Product and Services is to impro ve the secure 
and controllable level and prevent the security risk, safeguarding the national security and public 
interests. It is not targeted at specific member, makes no difference between members, and will 
not discriminate against products and technolo gies from abroad, nor will it restrict the market 
access of foreign technologies. Besides, China thinks high of IP and effectively protects it, being 
against all the behaviors impairing the IP of enterprises. China won’t require the enterprises to 
hand in their source code to the government.  
2.3.4.41   China — Draft revised Encryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the 
Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) (IMS ID 534)  
2.218.   The representative of Japan  repeated concerns raised at the previous  Committee 
meeting.79 
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding China's  2.219.   
Draft revised Encryption Law by the Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration 
(OSCCA). The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/514 . 
The representative of the United States  remain ed concerned  by what seem ed to be a wide - 2.220.   
spread effort by China to impose "secure and controllable " requirements, largely based on the 
Multi-Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) system, on ICT products. The United States said that the 
MLPS was inflexibly prescriptive and could restrict the ability of consumers to purchase 
technologies established as safe everywhere else in the world. Additionally, in the view of the 
United States,  the req uirements raise d national treatment concerns by mandating domestic IP and 
equipment usage in sectors deemed "critical ". This was of particular concern given the extensive 
scope of projects classified as level 3 or above. The United States  hoped that China would  take 
                                                
76 For previous statements fo llow the thread under IMS ID 533  (under dates raised and references) . 
77 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.222 and G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.223, respectively.  
78 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.220.  
79 G/TBT/M/73, para.  2.216.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 37 - 
 
  into account all stakeholder comments made on the draft standards related to MLPS, but more 
broadly, encourage d China  to adopt international standards instead of creating country -specific 
ones.  
The representative of the Republic of Korea  reiterated previously raised concerns .80 2.221.   
The representative of China  repeated its response to the concerns raised provided at the 2.222.   
previous  Committee meeting.81 
2.3.4.42   European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - non-renewal of approval of 
the active substance pi coxystrobin G/TBT/N/EU/437 (IMS ID 53582)  
2.223.   The representative of Brazil  expressed concern about the EU ban on certain substances 
founded only on a hazard -based approach. In Brazil's view, the withdrawal of picoxystrobin from 
the list of substances approved by Regulation 540/2011, thus suspending, since November 2017, 
the authorizations of pharmaceutical products contain ing this substance, did not take into account 
the international standards and scientific consensus on the subject, which considered the 
subst ance to be safe in order to protect crops, particularly regarding  genotoxicity.  
Brazil highlighted the following scientific consensus on the matter: Council Directive 2.224.   
91/414/EEC declared picoxystrobin to be non -toxic;  the report of the European Food Safe 
Authority highlighted that "it was not possible to conclude on the genotoxicity potential of 
picoxystrobin based on the available dat a"; the recommendations of the Joint Committee on 
pesticides residues specialists of the FAO -WHO concluding that this subst ance was not genotoxic;  
the fact that agencies in almost 70 countries had approved the use of this substance , including the 
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, 
the Japanese MAAF Agency, among others; an d European authorities such as the Standing 
Committee on Plants Animals, Food and Feed and the appeal committee had not found a 
conclusive decision on this ( "no opinion ").  
In this sense, the Brazilian delegation asked EU to consider that, depending on pos sible 2.225.   
reductions on MRL for this substance, Brazil might face serious impacts on trade for certain 
agriculture commodities. Brazil requested the EU to take its concerns i nto account in compliance 
with A rticles 2.2 and 2.5 of TBT Agreement so as to not crea te unnecessary restrictions to trade 
and to declare picoxystrobin as safe for the protection of crops and renew the licensing of products 
treated with the substance.  
The representative of Canada  said that picoxystrobin was an active ingredient that was 2.226.   
used as a fungicide on a wide variety of crops cultivated in Canada and exported to the European 
Union. Canada understood that no changes to existing MRLs had been proposed at this time. 
However, C anada was aware of recent SCOPAFF discussions in February 2018 on future work on 
MRLs for picoxystrobin. Canada requested that any change to the import MRL be notified to the 
WTO SPS Committee.  
Canada said that in light of the reviews undertaken internati onally that had determined 2.227.   
that this active ingredient could be used safely in agriculture, Canada sought confirmation from the 
EU that import MRLs for the active ingredient would be maintained in order to avoid unwarranted 
trade disruptions. Canada sought  confirmation from the EU that import MRLs for this active 
ingredient would be maintained in order to minimize trade disruptions. If not, Canada sought 
confirmation from the EU that any proposal for changes to existing MRLs would be notified to the 
SPS Com mittee, and that SPS Committee Members would have the opportunity to provide 
comments to the EU. In addition, Canada encouraged the EU to base its scientific review process 
on the assessment of risks and to consider all data that was made available for the  purpose of a 
review.   
                                                
80 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.218.  
81 G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.220.  
82 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 535  (under dates raised and references) . G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 38 - 
 
  The representative of the European Union  recalled that detailed written information had 2.228.   
been provided, in response to Brazil , on this issue on 19 July 2017 . A number of points were made 
at the current meeting. The full statement is c ontained in document G/TBT/W/515 .  
2.3.4.43   European Union — Titanium dioxide: Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP 
Regulation), Annex VI, Part 2 (IMS ID 53983) 
2.229.   The representative of the United States  expressed  continue d concern with the 
transparency and pace of the EU' s process to classify Titanium Dioxide.  As reflected in the public 
comments by the member States, the study proposed by the Commission -supported EU 
Nanosafety cluster on TiO2 classification, as we ll as ongoing consultations by the EC on the 
classification and risk of nanoforms, including poorly soluble, low toxicity (PSLT) substances such 
as TiO2, there was not yet scientific consensus.  Given the potential trade impacts on this $20 
billion dollar T iO2 global industry , as well as the over $80 billion in trade of downstream products 
using  the substance, her delegation asked that the EU avoid premature action.  The TiO2 
carcinogen classification and the resulting labelling and risk management requiremen ts it would  
set in place may also be precedential for a number of other substances, similarly available as 
nano-particles and therefore potentially subject to the same requirements. This would 
exponentially multiply the trade impacts on a number of product s. 
2.230.   The US was of the understand ing that the Commission was planning a technical 
consultation in April to review the question of how to best classify and to manage the risk of TiO2. 
The US welcomed the EU's invitation to submit comments on the meeting and its agenda, but 
asked that,  in line with transparency commitments under the TBT Agreement , the EU open the 
meeting to the US and other stakeholders.  She said that t here was good precedent for US –EU 
collaboration in addressing the potential trade impacts of  chemical evaluations and classifications, 
as exhibited in 2017, when the EU had hosted a bi lateral specialist consultation on textiles.  Her 
delegation believed that a  similar exchange would be an excellent means of ensuring that 
international stakeholder input was received and reviewed.   
2.231.   The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/516 . 
2.3.4.44   China — Catalogue of Solid Wastes Forbid den to Import into China 
G/TBT/ N/CHN/1211  (IMS ID 54584) 
The representative of Japan  asked that the concerns raised by his delegation under the 2.232.   
STC No. 1  also be considered under this STC.85 
The representative of the United States  reiterated previously raised concerns  86 over the 2.233.   
negative trade and environmental impacts resulting from China 's import ban restricting imports of 
recovered materials, such as plastics. The representative noted that despite the concerns and the 
US delegation's repeated attempts  to request meetings with experts from China 's Ministry of the 
Environment to discuss these concerns, China appeared to be moving forward with the 
implementation of these trade -restrictive measures. The US requested China to immediately halt 
implementation  of its ban on the import of recovered mate rials in favour of a less trade -restrictive 
approach. The representative of the United States requested China to provide a 60 -day comment 
period in line with the Committee Recommendations contained in Annex 3 of G /TBT/9 and allow 
reasonable implementation timeframes subsequently. Similar to China 's import standards, the 
notifications G/TBT/N/CHN/1211 and G/TBT/N/CHN/1212 had entered into force well before the 
customary six-month minimum timeframe for technical meas ures and beyond any reasonable 
interval for industry to make necessary adjustments to their supply chains.  
The US welcomed China 's interest in addressing environmental concerns but, at the same 2.234.   
time, stressed that the approach taken would have the opposit e effect by exacerbating both global 
                                                
83 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 539  (under dates raised and references) . 
84 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 545  (under dates raised and references).  
85 China — Chinese Environmental protection control standards for imported solid waste as raw 
materials (paras . 2.9-2.19 above)  
86 G/TBT/M/73, paras 2.8 -2.9. G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 39 - 
 
  and local environmental challenges. Most likely reusable plastics would be redirected from 
productive purposes to the waste stream posing harm to fish and wildlife. The US delegation 
expressed concerns about the scope o f materials subject to the import ban. Meanwhile, the US 
believed that China had no commensurate domestic materials management regime in place and 
was interested in learning about China's views on G/TBT/N/CHN/1211 in the context of national 
treatment requi rements.  Similar concerns were expressed about China 's import control standards. 
Further, the US was concerned that a ban with such a broad scope was more trade -restrictive than 
necessary to fulfil its objectives. Had China considered less trade -restrictiv e alternatives instead of 
a total ban? If not, the US would be pleased to wor k with China on such less trade -restrictive 
alternatives. The US enquired about the measures China was applying to the use or sale of 
domestically sourced recovered materials, and  asked if those measures might not suffice if applied 
to imported materials as well. Given these standards had not been notified to the WTO TBT 
Committee and only provided a 15 -day public comment period, the US requested China to notify 
these new standards  in a timely manner and provide a 60-90 day comment period. The US called 
for the measure to be halted with a view towards de veloping alternative less trade -restrictive 
measures.  
The representative of Australia  supported China's efforts to reduce pollution  through a 2.235.   
broad range of measures but shared the concerns of other delegations about the ban on certain 
waste and scrap imports. The ban on imports would affect Australian exporters and could lead to 
large amounts of waste going to landfill, instead of be ing recycled in China and recovered for 
intermediate materials. The representative queried the regulations or standards applied to 
domestic waste products and how they were to be enforced, and whether domestic waste 
standards were the same as the ones appl ied to foreign waste. Australia sought further 
information on the specific public health and environmental protection objectives and their 
fulfilment by the measure, and any technical and scientific analysis underpinning the measure. 
Australia also questio ned whether the measure was more trade restrictive than necessary to 
achieve the desired objectives. Like other M embers, Australia was also concerned about the 
insufficient timeframe for comments on the measure.  The representative urged China to withdraw 
the measure, and consider all possible mechanisms to meet its environmental objectives and 
reduce hazardous waste, while not disrupting valuable trade in recyclable materials.  
The representative of New Zealand  recalled that WTO M embers retain ed the right t o 2.236.   
regulate to protect their environments. However, New Zealand believed that it was vital to the 
continued effective functioning of the WTO r ules-based system that all WTO M embers adhered to 
the agreed TBT Committee procedures relating to the notification of new measures. In that 
respect, New Zealand ech oed the points raised by other M embers in relation to the short comment 
timeframe and implementation period.  
Concerning the impact of China 's new measure on imports of vanadium slag specifically, 2.237.   
New Zealan d sought clarification about the way the measure was being applied to domestically 
produced vanadium slag purposefully produced as a co -product to the manufacture of iron and 
steel. Specifically, how would China ensure that the conditions for foreign produ cts were no less 
favourable than those accorded to domestic products? The representative noted that for vanadium 
slag, China was one of the largest global producers, with approximately 500,000 tonnes annual 
production generated as a co -product from a numbe r of steel mills. In light of this, New Zealand 
was interested in China 's clarification on how an import under 50,000 tonnes of vanadium slag, 
and non -application to significantly larger domestic production or processing, would achieve 
China 's environmenta l and health objectives. New Zealand was also interested to receive a further 
explanation on how it had ensured that the import ban was not more trade restrictive than 
necessary to achieve China 's environmental and health protection objectives. New Zealand  further 
asked whether China had considered less trade -restrictive alternatives that would apply equally to 
domestic and foreign vanadium slag to achieve its environmental protection objectives, and, if so, 
on what basis it had been decided not to adopt su ch alternatives . 
The representative of Canada  share d the concerns raised by other M embers about the 2.238.   
uncertainty that China 's restrictions on the import of solid waste were creating for traders. Clarity 
on the explicit descriptions of each newly banned mate rials and the rationale for China 's action in 
each case would be most helpful in understanding China 's intentions. In particular, Canada 
requested specific details on how China would differentiate between the products listed under HS 
code 3915 that appear on both the Catalogue of Solid Wastes Forbidden to Import into China and 
the Catalogue of Solid Wastes Which were Restricted to Import and Usable as Raw Materials.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 40 - 
 
  The trade in recyclable materials between Canada and China was mutually beneficial. 2.239.   
Canada encouraged China to consider all possible mechanisms that would achieve their 
environmental objective, while ensuring that trade is not disrupted . 
The representative  of China  said advancing the reform of the solid waste import 2.240.   
administration regime is one of the most important steps that the Chinese Government has taken 
to implement the New Development Ideas, safeguard the eco -environment safety and population 
health . China had allowed a sufficient transition period for adjustment by delaying the effective 
date of the new catalogue to 31 December 2017, leaving a six -month transition period for relev ant 
industries and enterprises. China believed that most importantly, a ll Members, not only China, but 
also the rest of the world should follow the letters  and spirit of the Basel Convention , to reduce, 
process, and recycle hazardous wastes and other wastes produced within their own territory. With 
this consensus and subject to this condition, many problems could be better solved, and mutual 
understanding could be developed. It would also contribute to the global promotion of a green, 
low-carbon and recycling development mode, and the creation of a clean, beautiful world.  
2.3.4.45   India — Amended regulation on toy imports – G/TBT/N/IND/68  (IMS ID 
54687) 
2.241.   The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding India's 
amended Toy Imports Regulation . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/517 . 
The representative of the United States  supported India's goal of ensuring toy safety. 2.242.   
However, the US had serious concerns with the burdensome nature of these new requirements, 
which could harm the US toy industry's ability to access the Indian market. Prior to the regulatory 
changes, India employed what many consider the "gold standard" of toy regulatory regimes: toy 
manufacturers could test to either the ASTM, ISO, or EN toy safety standards in the country of 
manufa cture by a lab accredited under the ILAC system. She noted that, while India noted that the 
rationale for the regulatory changes was a concern about the quality of products coming in from a 
particular country, the measure was affecting all imports, regardl ess of the country of origin.  
According to India's recent trade statistics, India imported toys from 48 different countries in 
2016. The US was the sixth largest exporter of toys to India in 2016. These were primarily 
specialty toys from small and medium -sized manufacturers. The US was also home to two of the 
world's largest toy companies. The value of the Indian toy market for thos e companies was 
estimated at US$ 75-100 million in 2016. The US requested India for detailed information on the 
safety concerns of imported toys that lead to the new standard and in -country testing 
requirements that was immediately implemented per India's  notice to the WTO in December 2017. 
India was asked to explain whether the same standards, testing, and certification requirements 
were being equally applied to domestically produced toys because , according to the Amendment, it 
appeared that only imports must comply with the new changes. Could India provide the US with a 
list of the foreign labs located outside of India a ccredited by the National Accreditation Board and 
Calibration Laboratories (NABL) for testing the safety of toys . This list should also include 
information on how many applications had been received from foreign labs outside of India to test 
for safety of toys versus approved by NABL.  
The representative of China  noted that the amended regulation required  the imported toy 2.243.   
to be in conformity with only Indian Standards, not international standards, nor EU, US standards 
which were accepted before. On the othe r hand, the new regulation required  that the impor ted 
toys had  to be tested by NABL, instead of labs accredited under ILAC MRA . These requirements 
caused higher costs and new arrangements for the toy enterprises in China, therefore, creati ng 
barriers to tr ade. China hoped  that India could make modification s to this measure so as to allow 
imported toys to be in compliance with international, EU, US standards, and tested by ILAC MRA 
labs for imports. China also hoped  that India could make an early notificatio n and provide for a 
transitio nal period for future amendments of the  regulations.  
The representative of the Hong Kong, China  raised concerns on India's amended Toy 2.244.   
Imports Regulation.  The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/527 . 
                                                
87 For previous sta tements follow the thread under IMS ID 54 6 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 41 - 
 
  The representative of Mexico  supported the concerns raised by previous Members and 2.245.   
referred to her delegation's position and points in the previous Committee meeting88  
The representative of Canada  supported the concerns r aised by previous Members and 2.246.   
referred to his delegation's statement in the previous Committee89 meeting  
The representative of India recalled the explanations made in the previous meeting about 2.247.   
the reasons that had led India to enact th e measure. He also s aid that, for Members raising any 
additional concern, they should provide them to his delegation so that they could be sent to capital 
for any further clarification on the issues. The concerns already raised by Hong Kong, China would 
soon be replied to.  
2.3.4.46   China — Certification requirements for processed foods G/TBT/N/CHN/1209  
(IMS ID 54790) 
2.248.   The representative of the United States  thanked China for its bilateral engagement to date 
on the concerns raised on the proposed official certification requirements for imported foods and 
also for its September 2017 announcement notifying WTO Members of the two -year transitional 
period for enforcement from 1 October 2017 until 30 September 2019. The US remained 
concerned that, first, the scope of the products covered by t he measure appeared to include 
processed, shelf -stable foods that ordinarily posed little food safety risk. Second, China had not 
provided a scientific rationale for the requirement or evidence that official certification would 
address an identified concer n. Third, the requirements raised questions as to the consistency with 
Codex principles and guidelines, particularly with respect to the basic principle of basing national 
control systems, including import requirements, on evidence and risk. Fourth, the US  noted that 
national treatment questions as the requirement applied only to imports without a corresponding 
requirement for domestic production. China had indicated its willingness to consider and adopt 
reasonable suggestions from trading partners to modif y the proposed measure. To that end, the 
US respectfully requested that China revise its measure to ensure consistency with international 
guidelines and address the concerns expressed by trading partners. The US also requested that 
China notify its revised  draft measure to the WTO SPS Committee, given that its stated purpose 
was to address food safety concerns, concurrently with the TBT Committee, for Members' review 
and comments.  The new draft needed to identify the risk to be mitigated by the certificatio n 
requirement and clarify the scope of products subject to the proposed measure. The US looked 
forward to continued engagement with China in order to reach a mutual agreement on reasonable 
requirements for food imports  
The representative of the European Un ion continued to raise concerns regarding China's 2.249.   
certification requirements for processed foods. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/518 . 
The representative of Japan  shared concerns raised by the United States and the European 2.250.   
Union. Japan welcomed the provision of a two -year transitional period. Japan recognized that 
China was in the process of taking into account comments received at various occasions and was 
considering the new measure. J apan requested China to provide timely updates and appropriately 
include responses to the comments provided.  
The representative of Guatemala  thanked the US and the EU for including the issue on the 2.251.   
agenda and China for modifying the date of entry into forc e of the measure to October 2019, 
providing industry with time to adapt to the new measures. However, Guatemala also called on 
China to provide written replies to the request they had submitted on 4 August 2017 regarding the 
status of the measure. Guatemal a thanked China for their willingness to engage in consultations.  
The representative of China , recalling explanations provided during previous meetings, 2.252.   
said that the Measures for the Administration of Certificates Attached to Foods Exported to China 
had been established based on the Food Safety Law, which required imported food and food 
additives to be accompanied with a quality certificate, as required by state entry -exit inspection 
                                                
88 G/TBT/M/73, para 2.21.  
89 G/TBT/M/73,para 2.22.  
90 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 547 (under dates raised and references).  
 G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 42 - 
 
  and quarantine administration, to certify that relevant food had been pr oduced, processed, stored 
and exported under the supervision of the competent authority of the exporting country / region 
and to ensure the effective traceability of the product. The Measures had been officially notified to 
the WTO in June 2017. After cons idering comments from interested Members, China had decided 
to provide a transitional period of two years for all Members and had notified the WTO accordingly. 
The date of enforcement had been postponed to 1 October 2019. China was willing to consider all 
reasonable comments from WTO Members and adjust the measure to make it more effective, 
practical and to minimize its negative effects on trade. The two -year transitional period was the 
best proof that China took into account the practical situations of oth er Members. China welcomed 
that interested parties keep in touch with Chinese competent authorities and continue discussions 
on technical details.  
2.3.4.47   Viet Nam — Decree on the regulation on conditions for automobiles 
manufacturing, assembling importing and aut omotive warranty & maintenance services  
(IMS ID  54991) 
2.253.   The representative of the Thailand  continued to raise concerns regarding Viet Nam's 
automobile measure . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/523 . 
2.254.   The representative of Japan  noted that the decree was notified to the WTO only after its 
entry into force and no comment period was provided. Since its entry into force on 1 January 
2018, Decree 116 had caused serious damage in exporting automobiles to Viet Nam. Automobile 
importers were required to provide the copy of quality certificate of automobile types issued by 
overseas authorized agencies. Such a requirement could not be found globally. Domestic 
automobiles are required to obtain only vehicle type approval issued by Vietnamese authority, and 
Japan requested the same treatment be granted to imported automobiles.  She also noted that the 
requirement for inspections and tests of ea ch shipment could create unfair conditions for imported 
automobiles as compared to domestic automobiles. Japan thus requested Viet Nam to treat 
imported automobiles and domestic automobiles in an equitable manner and that Viet Nam ensure 
that the measure w as not more trade -restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective as o 
required under the TBT Agreement.  
The representative of the United States  supported the comment made by previous . Her 2.255.   
delegation was particularly concerned with the Vehicle Type Approval (VTA) certificate and lot -by-
lot testing requirements. In addition, the lot -by-lot testing requirements did not apply to 
domestically produced vehicles, resulting in discriminatory treatment for imports. The US asked 
that Viet Nam accept US -compliant vehicles and US -documentation to meet the VTA requirement. 
The US also asked that imported firms be allowed the same certification period offered to locally 
produced vehicles instead of requiring lot -by-lot safety and emissions testing. US auto 
manufacturers were unable to comply with this Decree and, as a result, imports of US -
manufactured vehicles stopped as of 1 January 2018. The US further requested that Viet Nam 
delay implementation of Decree 116 and its implementing circular so that US auto m anufacturers 
could resume exporting vehicles to Viet Nam, and allow  for consultations with the US G overnment 
and industry stakeholders to develop a long -term workable solution. Normally, auto regulations set 
out 18 -36 months before implementation for manuf acturers to meet the new requirements. She 
asked if Viet Nam would provide an opportunity for industry to comment on the measure after it s 
adoption and w hy Decree 116 was notified as an emergency measure when similar measures were 
notified on a continuous basis by WTO Members.  The US requested that Viet Nam notify the 
implementing circular for Decree 116, Circular 3. This was important since Circular 3 laid out 
conformity assessment procedures, including mandatory certification.  
The representative of the European Union  continued to raise concerns regarding Viet 2.256.   
Nam's automobile measure . The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/519 . 
The representative of Viet Nam  emphasized that the legitimate publi c policy objective of 2.257.   
the measure was to ensure consumers' safety and environment protection. The fundamental 
principle of non -discrimination between domestic and foreign enterprises ha d been upheld 
throughout the measure. Viet Nam took note of all the com ments  and concerns raised by Members  
and would shall duly relay them to relevant authorities for further considerations and responses . 
                                                
91 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 549 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 43 - 
 
  2.3.4.48   Viet Nam — Cybersecurity Measures  (IMS ID 54492) 
The representative of Japan  expressed concern and strong interest with re gard to Viet 2.258.   
Nam's draft Cybersecurity Law. Japan recognized that Viet Nam had revised the draft law, but it 
still included various provisions, which could hinder participation of foreign companies in the 
Vietnamese market. Japan asked that Viet Nam implem ent the measure in line with the TBT 
Agreement. Regarding the term "cybersecurity condition ", Japan was aware that the Vietnamese 
government would provide the definition of the "cybersecurity condition " under Article 13 of the 
draft law. Japan requested that Viet Nam clarify its requirements and procedures and avoid 
hindering participation of foreign companies in the Vietnamese market. Japan called on Viet Nam 
to consider comments from Japan and other Me mbers and implement the draft law in a 
transparent manner to avoid it being more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
The representative of the United States  supported the comments made by Japan. The US 2.259.   
was encouraged by Viet Nam's willingness to work with th e US and other stakeholders to resolve 
concerns with the Draft  Law on Cybersecurity. The US encouraged Vietnam , in revising its draft 
law, to consider a risk -based approach to cybersecurity dr awing  from global cybersecurity industry 
best practices, widely accepted definitio ns, and international standards . The US understood that 
Viet Nam was working on the 15th version of the measure and that it was looking at international 
standards. While there were various conformity assessment schemes, the most important  was the 
Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA), which covered the protection of cybersecurity. 
The US requested that Viet Nam consider CCRA when revising the latest draft of the measure. By 
taking into account international best practices for cybe rsecurity and international conformity 
assessment schemes, Viet Nam would be able to further improve its business climate and gain the 
confidence of US ICT manufacturers. The US hoped that the comments they had submitted on the 
15th version of the draft wo uld be reflected in future drafts. The US also looked forward to the 
formal notification and comment period for the draft law and asked Viet Nam to include any 
implementing measures, as the law covered many different areas.  
The representative of the Europe an Union  continued to raise concerns regarding Viet 2.260.   
Nam's cybersecurity measures. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/520 . 
The representative of Viet Nam  thanked delegations for their intere st in and concerns with 2.261.   
respect to the draft Cybersecurity Law and also thanked the US for the bilateral meeting.  
Viet Nam's  TBT office was in the process of coordinating with relevant agencies to notify the draft 
Cybersecurity Law to the WTO. In the mean time, the delegation of Viet Nam had taken note of all 
the comments and concerns raised by Members, and would duly relay them to relevant authorities 
for further consideration and responses.  
2.3.4.49   European Union — The establishment and operation of a traceabili ty system for 
tobacco products , G/TBT/N/EU/505 and G/TBT/N/EU/507 (IMS ID 55093) 
2.262.   The representative of Cuba continued to raise concerns on the EU's establishment and 
operation of a traceability system for tobacco products. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/470 . 
The representative of Dominican Republic  raised concerns the EU's establishment and 2.263.   
operation of a traceability system for tobacco products. The full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/524 . 
The representative of Indonesia  said that the concerns raised by Cuba and Dominican 2.264.   
Republic were of particular interest to Indonesia. H er delegation would closely monitor 
developments a nd discussion on this issue. Indonesia reserved its right to come back to this at 
upcoming TBT Committee meetings.  
The representative of the European Union  responded to the concerns raised. The full 2.265.   
statement is contained in G/TBT/W/5 21. 
                                                
92 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 544 (under dates raised and references).  
93 For previous statements follow the thread unde r IMS ID 550 (under dates raised and references).  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 44 - 
 
  2.3.4.50   Ecuador — Household refrigerating appliances (RTE INEN No. 009) 
G/TBT/N/ECU/3/Add.5  (IMS ID 54894) 
2.266.   The representative of Colombia  continued to raise concerns regarding Ecuador's measure 
on household refrigerating appliances. The full statement is contai ned in G/TBT/W/466 . 
The representative of Ecuador  thanked Colombia for their interest in this draft regulation 2.267.   
which had originally been notified in G/TBT/N/ECU/3/Add.1 on 29 November 2005. Ecuador , as a 
signatory to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987, has 
determined the need to have technical regulations for the use of more environmentally friendly 
refrigerating substances. In the market of home refrigeration a ppliances there is an established 
industry of products that use refrigerating substances with zero Ozone -Depletion Potential (zero -
ODP) and low Global Warming Potential (low -GWP). In order to respond to the comments received, 
Ecuador prepared a first revie w of Technical Regulation INEN 009 - Household refrigerating 
appliances, which, once entered into force, would effectively change the implementation period. As 
a result, the text of the regulation would enter into force 365 days after its publication in th e 
official journal.  
2.4  Exchange of Experiences  
2.4.1   Eighth Triennial Review – Chairman’s report (JOB/TBT/240/Rev.2)  
The Chair thanked Members for their productive engagement during the informal meeting 2.268.   
of 21 March during which eight proposals were discuss ed. He welcomed the important step forward 
this represented in the Eighth Triennial Review process. Brazil, Canada, China, the EU and the US 
made comments on the revised Chairman's report on these discussions, all of which were taken 
into account in the fina l report subsequently issued as JOB/TBT/240/Rev.2. The Chairman  
encouraged the submission of any further proposals in advance of the deadline of 1  June 2018 to 
allow sufficient time for reflection in advance of the regular June meeting . He also called upon  
Members' continu ed efforts to bring the Eighth Triennial Review to a successful conclusion by 
November 2018.  
2.4.2   Other matters  
2.4.2.1   Good Regulatory Practices (GRP)  
 The Chairman  noted that the Committee had held discussions earlier in the week on the 2.269.   
topic of the Committee's "Non -Exhaustive List of Voluntary Mechanisms and Related Principles of 
Good Regulatory Practices (GRP)". He recalled that this work had been ongoing since th e Sixth 
Triennial Review when the Committee had been mandated to identify mechanisms and principles 
to help guide Members in a more efficient and effective implementation of the TBT Agreement 
across the regulatory lifecycle. It had resulted in document JOB /TBT/119/Rev.1, dated 
4 December  2014. At that time, in December 2014, there was wide agreement on the substantive 
content of the document – but its adoption had been held up because of disagreement on the 
inclusion (or not) of a disclaimer – and the possi ble formulation of any such disclaimer. Discussion 
had thus been held up since 2014 and successive chairpersons had tried to resolve the impasse 
without success.  
The Chairman  drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that in the SPS Committee, after 2.270.   
a similarly long "down" period, delegations had agreed on language for a disclaimer in the context 
of the adoption of a document entitled “Catalogue of Instruments Available to WTO Members to 
Manage SPS Issues”.95 In the discussion of the document in informal m ode, he said that several 
viewpoints had been expressed that could be grouped in three areas. First, it was reiterated that 
there was no need for a disclaimer because the document was illustrative and voluntary in nature 
and this was most clearly expressed  in the very title of the document. A second view was that the 
document had evolved since the Committee had last considered it some four years ago and that 
there were new experiences that could be worth discussing and perhaps injecting. And third, it had 
                                                
94 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 548 (under dates raised and references).  
95 Subsequently circulated as G/SPS/63  on 26 March 2018 (see paras 1 and 2).  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 45 - 
 
  been pointed out that the document remained of value, that a lot of energy had been put into it 
and that while it certainly could be improved and expanded, it remained a good basis to build on. 
During the informal, the Chairman recalled, no Member had spoke n in favour of a disclaimer and 
he had therefore asked if Members would be willing to advance on the basis of a document without  
a disclaimer at the current meeting.  
The Chairman  suggested that Members begin by discussing the issue of the disclaimer. He 2.271.   
noted that the disclaimer at issue is contained on the second page, para 3 of JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1. 
Could Members accept the document without  a disclaimer; this would mean the deletion  of the 
text currently in brackets in para. 3?  
The representative of India said that his delegation was awaiting instructions on the issue 2.272.   
from capital but ensured Members that India saw value in the document.  
The representative of China  requested more time to consult with relevant agencies back in 2.273.   
capital and maintained its for mal position, suggesting the issue be left open until the next meeting.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  joined China and India in requesting more 2.274.   
time to consult stake holders on the document.  
The representative of Brazil  recalled his delegati on's position in the informal meeting, 2.275.   
echoing the Chair's sentiment that as the document ha d been on the table  for quite a while , and as 
long as there was no fundamental objection to the text of the non -exhaustive list, the Committee 
could perhaps envisag e getting it approved. Brazil continued to share the opinion of others that 
the document contained nothing that could or should give rise to concern. The list had been 
negotiated in the Committee,  and, moreover,  it complied with  what was already in the TBT 
Agreement. As such, his delegation believed that the list fell under the objectives of the WTO and 
its bodies , specified in the Marrakesh Agreement, and sometimes repeated in the specific 
agreements, to “further  the objectives ” of the se agreements.  
On the specific issue of the disclaimer, Brazil recognize d the hesitation of some Members 2.276.   
but reiterated his delegation’s stance, and that of many others, that inserting disclaimers creat ed 
difficulties and probably also encouraged  their proliferat ion to other committees , particularly when 
the document simply contained a list. He u rged China, India and Russia to reflect on this in order 
to try and get the document adopted by the June meeting. He recalled that back in early 2013,  
Members had evaluated and as sessed the value of having disclaimers (and different forms  
thereof ); the conclusion had been that there was no legal reason for a legal disclaimer, but that 
there may be political or other reasons. In addition, there had been two opportunit ies (in the TBT  
and SPS Committees) to hear report s by a representative from the WTO  Legal Affairs D ivision  
which had not given rise to a different conclusion.  Brazil urged the Committee to give meaning  to 
paragraph  29 of the Nairobi declaration which  recall ed Members ' collective responsibility to 
strengthen the work of regular WTO bodies . It was hoped that by June, the Committee could 
complete its work on th is matter . 
The Chairman said that it was too early to take any decision on the issue as some 2.277.   
Members needed more time. He therefore proposed to revert to the matter in informal mode prior 
to the June meeting, by which point, he hoped, positions would be clearer and consultations  may 
have been concluded.  
The representative of  Argentina  agreed with the proposal of the Chairman. However, he 2.278.   
enquired whether at the proposed informal meeting there would only be discussion of the 
disclaimer or whether the second point  mentioned in his report ( the fact that GRP had evolved 
over the last four years ) would be discussed, as it appeared that some Members would have 
objections to the document beyond the disclaimer . 
The representative of the  United States  expressed concern that the GRP documen t dated 2.279.   
from the Sixth Triennial Review and that no Member had proposed that the document be 
considered under the current Eighth Triennial Review. As such, her delegation suggested that it be 
considered on a separate agenda to discussions on the Eighth Tri ennial Review. In addition, she 
suggested that it would be 'cleaner' to talk about JOB/TBT/ 119 for the Sixth Triennial Review as it 
did not contain the bracketed language that was being discussed at the current meeting.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 46 - 
 
  The Chairperso n, addressing Argentin a's question said that if the issue of the disclaimer 2.280.   
could be addressed and solved, discussions could move forward . However, if no resolution was 
found,  he believed there would no value in discussing the substance of the document. To the 
United States he confirmed that discussion of the disclaimer  was on a separate track from the 
Eighth Triennial Review and that there was no formal linkage between the two.   
The representative of Argentina  supported the Chairperson's stance on how discussions on 2.281.   
this issue should proceed . He said that his delegation's impression from the informal meeting held 
earlier in the week  was that not many Members objected to whether or not to include disclaimer, 
and as such there was  no need fo r lengthy debate in this regard . He echo ed the point made by one 
Member that Members ' positions  were well known with respect to the disclaimer. His delegation 
was concerned, however, about the fact that M embers may have objections relating to the  content  
of the  document  as on Tuesday reservation s had been heard for the first time on the  content , 
beyond the issue of the disclaimer . He suggested that in the interest of time, and to avoid 
revert ing to a circular discussion on the disclaimer , it would be more effective to deal with 
substance  first.  
The representative of the  United States  sought clarification regarding which version of 2.282.   
document was under discussion : JOB/TBT/119 or JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1 (containing bracketed 
language) ? Moreover, she invited the Chair to avoid drawing attention to the discl aimer by 
specifically referring to the adoption, or not, of the GRP document, rather than to discussion of the 
disclaimer itself.   
The Chairperson  confirmed that the latest version was JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1 ; this  was the 2.283.   
document being discussed along with the bracketed text therein. He remained of the view that if 
the issue of the disclaimer could be resolved, then the Committee could move forward.  
The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation was of the same understanding as the 2.284.   
Chairpe rson that the only docume nt on the table was JOB/TBT/119 /Rev.1 ; the only part in 
brackets was the 'disclaimer'. He drew attention to the introductory part of the document 
contained in paragraph 4, which read that 'this document may be reviewed as and when desired 
by Members' , saying that this should answer Argentina's concern . He added that once the issue of 
the disclaimer was resolved, the document could be approved and that it was not possible to 
continue pursu ing improvements  and additions ( with new GRPs). Finally, he alluded to ano ther 
much more extreme course of events , whereby Members may have fundamental objection s to the 
existing text because of it dating back to 2013, but clarified that no Member had done so explicitly.   
The United States  asked for confirmation that there were two sets of square brackets in 2.285.   
JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1.  
The Secretariat  said that the document referred to by the Chairman was 2.286.   
JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1, dated 4 December 2014, and that it contained one set of square brackets in 
paragraph 3  and another around the word 'may' on page 6. The Rev.1 version was the one closest 
to achieving consensus in the Committee ; the JOB/TBT/119 version dated to October of the same 
year. 
The representative of the United States  disagreed with the general view that 2.287.   
JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1 gathered most consensus as it was her delegation's understanding that 
document JOB/TBT/119 was the version that had been up for discussion at the November meeting. 
She stressed that JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1 did not have consensus as only a couple of Members wanted 
the additional proposed language.  
The representative of Brazil  requested additional confirmation that the only differences 2.288.   
between the two versions were the disclaimer and the square brackets around 'may'.  
The Secretariat  comparing the two versions, noted that in addition to the two sets of 2.289.   
square brackets already mentioned by the Chair, there were a number of other differences 
between the JOB/TBT/119 and its Rev.1,  including: in footnote 4, in f ootnote 8 and  substan tive 
changes on pages 7 and 10.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 47 - 
 
  The representative of South Africa  recalled the discussion that had been held on 2.290.   
JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1 and confirmed that this was the latest version on the table and that it 
represented the closest the Committee had come to consensu s, the only outstanding issues being 
the disclaimer and the word 'may' as had been mentioned by the Chair.  
Argentina  requested clarification on whether JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1 was the latest version of 2.291.   
the document on which subsequent past discussions had been held, including in informal mode.  
The Chairman  confirmed that since JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1 had been issued, all discussions 2.292.   
had been on that version. Moreover, any future discussions would also be based on that version. 
In summing up, he proposed to hold an in formal meeting in advance of the next TBT Committee to 
address the issue of the disclaimer and to see if there had been any new developments from those 
Members who needed more time to consider the matter. Once that issue was resolved, the focus 
of discussi ons would move to finding a way forward and to see if there was room for agreement.  
3  THE 23RD ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE  IMPLEMENTATION AND O PERATION OF THE TBT 
AGREEMENT (ARTICLE 1 5.3)  
The Secretariat  drew the Committee's attention to the 23rd Annual Review of the 3.1.  
implementation and operation of the TBT Agreement  (G/TBT /40) which contain s information on 
developments in the Committee relating to the implementation and operation of the TBT 
Agreement from 1 January t o 31 December 2017 .  
The Committee took note of the Review . 3.2.  
4  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  ACTIVITIES  
The representative of Colombia  thanked the WTO Secretariat for the national workshop on 4.1.  
the TBT and SPS Agreement that had taken place in Bogota in November 2017. 30 Participants 
from standardizing bodies, agencies and the private sector  had taken part . She hoped that there 
would be further technical assistance activities in Colombia as this provided an excellent 
opportunity to improve technical expertise among thos e working on TBT issues in various 
ministries.    
The representative of the United States  updated the Committee on TBT related technical 4.2.  
assistance activities  that had been undertaken by the Standards Alliance .  
The Secretariat  updated the Committee on the TBT Advanced Course which took place from 4.3.  
12-23 March 2018. There were 23 participants from all regions who worked in standard setting 
bodies, trade and foreign affairs ministries and parli ament. The broad objectives of the course was 
to consolidate knowledge of the TBT Agreement, strengthen their capacity to engage in the work 
of the TBT Committee, proficiency in the use of the on -line tools and strengthen their network of 
contents.  
On ePing , the secretariat continued to provide training in the context of the range of technical 4.4.  
assistance activities and there would be a particular focus in 2018 on training enquiry points in the 
advanced features the y can benefit from. She invited interested delegations to approach the TBT 
team for further information.  
The Advanced Course participant from South Africa , on behalf of all participants informed the 4.5.  
Committee that the course had equipped them with a deeper , comprehensive and practical 
understanding of the TBT Agreement and had also enhanced their knowledge of other agreements 
such as the SPS Agreement and the Trade Facilitation Agreement. Participants looked forward to 
returning home and contributing in the  best possible way to advance international trade through 
the implementation of the TBT Agreement.  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 48 - 
 
  5  UPDATING BY OBSERVER S 
5.1  Updates  
The representatives of the Codex , UNECE , UNIDO , WHO, BIPM and IEC96 provided updates.  5.1.  
The representative of the United States  expressed some concerns about the revision of 1994 5.2.  
Guide 59 on the Code of Good Practice for Standardization that was being undertaken by ISO. The 
full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/471 . 
5.2  Pending Requests  
The Chairman  recalled that the Committee had had an initial e xchange in informal mode on 5.3.  
23 February regarding procedures for dealing with pending requests for observer status 
(G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.14 and RD/TBT/1/Rev.6). The Secretariat had been tasked with following -up 
with those organizations whose applications were s till pending. Earlier during the week, also in 
informal mode, the Secretariat had briefed the Committee on their contacts with the applicants. 
Essentially, the Secretariat had heard that all observers that had pending requests except for the 
Gulf Organizat ion for Industrial Consulting remained interested. The Secretariat also noted that the 
International Accreditation Forum (IAF) and International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation 
(ILAC) had been on the list for many years, that they had been active in t he Committee's work, 
and were among those that had recently re -stated their willingness to be observers in the TBT 
Committee. Considering this, on Tuesday in the informal, the Chairman recalled that he had 
suggested that the Committee consider ILAC/IAF's o bserver status request at the present meeting. 
However, the Chairman noted that some Members were not in a position to take a decision at the 
current meeting. Nevertheless, he wished to offer delegations an opportunity to make statements 
related to the lis t of applicants that we have before the Committee. The floor is open.  
The representative of South Africa  expressed his delegation's support to invite ILAC and IAF 5.4.  
to attend meetings of the Committee as observers. The full statement by is contained in 
G/TBT/W/525 . 
The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  supported the application for observer status from 5.5.  
ILAC IAF. In Trinidad and Tobago, there had been efforts to formalize the national quality poli cy 
infrastructure and framework of which the international accreditation programme was a critical 
part. Indeed, the use of accredited tests, certification, inspection and calibration services was a 
basic principle which facilitated trade. Observer status f or the ILAC IAF would assist in reinforcing 
the principles and benefits of using conformity assessment procedures in trade. In addition, having 
a first -hand experience of concerns raised in the TBT Committee could better contribute to the 
possibility of cu stomizing conformity assessment solutions offered when and if needed.  
The representative of the European Union  said that, based on previous discussions and 5.6.  
especially on the basis of the wording of Item 5 of the Annotated draft Agenda, it had been the EU 
understanding that substantive discussions on observership would take place at the June meeting. 
Therefore, the EU was not in a position to agree on or have substantive discussion on requests for 
observer status at the current meeting. However, with a view to future discussions, the EU 
stressed the importance of considering requests under the Rule of Procedure Rule 1197 which 
provided that observer organizations needed to be international intergovernmental organizations.  
The representatives of Brazil , Canada , Costa Rica , Singapore  and the United States  supported 5.7.  
the application of ILAC and IAF.  
The representative of Turkey  supported granting observer status to the Standards and 5.8.  
Metrology Institute for Islamic Countries’ (SMIIC). The full statement by Turkey is contained in 
G/TBT/W/526.  
                                                
96 G/TBT/GEN/244, G/TBT/GEN/245, G/TBT/GEN/ 246, G/TBT/GEN/243  
97 G/TBT/1/Rev.13, p.76 (as well as Annex B on p.81).  G/TBT/M/74  
 
- 49 - 
 
  The representative of Saudi Arabia  believed that the participation of SMIIC to the TBT 5.9.  
Committee as observers could benefit the SMIIC by allowing it to be up to date with the latest 
developments and requirements on internationa l trade. Saudi Arabia thus supported the request 
for observer status by SMIIC and encouraged the Committee to grant it.  
The representative of Egypt  expressed support for the requests from SMIIC and COMESA.  5.10.   
The Chairman  thanked Members for their engagement and noted that as list of 5.11.   
organizations requesting observer was growing the Committee need ed to address them. He 
suggested that: i) Members come prepared for the June regular meeting to consider the 
applications for ad hoc observer status from the Internat ional Accreditation Forum (IAF) and 
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC); and, (ii) that the Committee in June 
choose which further request(s) to consider in November.  
The Committee agreed  on this approach.  5.12.   
6  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
The next regular meeting of the Committee will be held on  20-21 June 2018. This will be 6.1.  
preceded by an informal meeting on the Eighth Triennial Review on 2018. 
__________