RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/M/42 
6 August 2007 
 (07-3341) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 5 JULY 2007  
 
Chairperson:  Mr. R.S. SIDHU (India)
 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
  
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA......................................................................................................... .......2  
II. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT........................................2  
A. STATEMENTS  FROM  MEMBERS  UNDER  ARTICLE  15.2 .................................................................2  
B. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS ........................................................................................................................2  
1. New Concerns................................................................................................................... ...................2  
2. Previously Rais ed Concerns ..................................................................................................... ........12  
C. EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCES .....................................................................................................................23  
1. Good Regulato ry Prac tice ....................................................................................................... .........23  
2. Conformity Assess ment Procedures ............................................................................................... .25 
3. Transparency................................................................................................................... ..................25  
4. Technical As sistance ........................................................................................................... ..............27  
5. Special and Differen tial Treatment ............................................................................................. ....29 
D. OTHER MATTERS ............................................................................................................................... ......29  
III. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION ACTIVITIES.....................................................................................30  
IV. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS .......................................................................................................... ......30  
V. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................. ..................30  
VI.   DATE OF NEXT  MEETING ........................................................................................................... ........31  
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. G/TBT/M/42 
Page 2  
 
   
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3030.   
II. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
A. STATEMENTS  FROM  MEMBERS  UNDER  ARTICLE  15.2 
2. The Chairman  recalled that the list of Statements made under Article 15.2 of the TBT 
Agreement was contained in document G/TBT/GEN/ 1/Rev.5, dated 2 March 2007.  He noted that 
since the March meeting of the Committee, Colombia2 and Canada3 had submitted revisions to their 
statements.   
3. The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to the latest list of Members' Enquiry Points, 
contained in document G/TBT/ENQ/30, dated 22 June 2007.   
B. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
1. New Concerns 
(i) Canada – Compositional requirements for cheese (G/TBT/N/CAN/203) 
4. The representative of New Zealand  pointed out that the proposed regulations governing new 
compositional standards for cheese produced and/or sold in Canada would limit the use in cheese-
making of milk protein ingredients, such as milk pr otein isolates, in favour of using liquid milk or 
cream.  His delegation was concerned with the pro posed regulations, including in relation to their 
consistency with the TBT Agreement, and that concer ns had also been raised bilaterally, including at 
the last TBT Committee meeting in March 2007. 
5. The representative of New Zealand stressed that  Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement required 
that technical regulations should be no more trad e restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate 
objective, and sought clarification on:  how limiting the use of dairy protein ingredients widely-used in 
cheese-making would allow for "technological a dvances" in cheese production; and how "consumer 
interests" were enhanced by imposing requireme nts on the origin and minimum proportion of the 
protein component in varietals of cheese.  Additi onally, he wondered what impact Canada expected 
the proposed regulation would have on imports of dairy protein ingredients, and how this was 
consistent with the requirement that technical regula tions be not more trade restrictive than necessary. 
6. The representative of New Zealand also pointed out that Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement 
required Members to use relevant international st andards as a basis for technical regulations unless 
they were inappropriate.  He noted that while the Codex Alimentarius laid down ingredient standards 
for some specific varietals of cheese, the general standard for cheese-making allowed the use of milk 
and/or products obtained from milk, without restricting the origin or proportion of the protein content.  
He sought clarification as to why Canada had set a standard for all cheeses inconsistent with the 
Codex general standard for cheese-making.   
7. Furthermore, clarification was sought on what  legitimate objective was served by requiring 
manufacturers and importers to provide informa tion on the proportion of casein in cheese derived 
from liquid milk as a percentage of the total protein and on the amount of casein lost in whey during 
                                                      
2 G/TBT/2/Add.18/Rev.2 
3 G/TBT/2/Add.6/Rev.2  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 3 
 
 
  cheese manufacture.  Canada was requested to explain how they proposed to verify this information, 
what standards would be used for this and what the costs of verification for cheese-makers, importers 
and consumers would be. 
8. The representative of the United States  pointed out that US dairy producers and processors 
were concerned that the prescriptive nature of  the proposed compositional requirements would 
significantly reduce market access for milk protei n concentrates to the Canadian market.  In 
particular, the domestic industry w as concerned about the introduction of ratios that prescribed the 
amount of protein from raw milk and protein derived from other sources that could be used in cheese-making.  In industry's view, there appeared to be no rationale for the ratios used, nor why the whey 
and re-introduced whey deriving from domestic milk were not counted towards the percentage of 
protein derived from raw milk.  
9. It was stressed that the measure, if enacted as drafted, would limit the ability of processors in 
Canada to use dairy ingredients.  As a result, th e market access for milk protein concentrates that 
Canada had agreed to when it accepted its WTO ob ligations would be significantly reduced.  More 
detailed comments would be submitted to  the Canadian Enquiry Point.   
10. The representative of Australia
 shared the concerns expressed and pointed out that her 
delegation had raised the issue bilaterally with Canada.  Detailed comments in response to the 
notification would be provided. 
11. The representative of the European Communities  noted that the proposed Canadian 
amendments to its compositional standards for chee ses set minimum percentages of proteins to be 
derived from liquid milk for various cheeses, and required a detailed system of certification and 
import licensing.  She stressed that a preliminary examination of the proposal indicated that the 
measure could have a negative impact on EC exports to Canada and could de facto  ban certain cheese 
varieties from being exported to that market.  If the proposed amendment was adopted, it could result 
in a decrease in the demand for basic products such  as protein, casein protein and milk protein.   
12. Furthermore, the representative of the Eu ropean Communities noted that the announced 
measure included an additional licensing scheme for imports other than the requirement to get an 
import permit under Canada's tari ff-rate quota regime.  She sought information with respect to the 
meaning of "fine" cheeses for which the proposed amendments set the minimum percentage of raw 
milk at 98 per cent, to the treatment of import of cheeses that did not comply with these new standards, and to the proof that had to be provide d by foreign suppliers that cheeses complied with the 
future requirements.  Like othe rs, her delegation would also subm it written comments in response to 
the TBT notification. 
13. The representative of Canada
 noted that the proposed amendments to the compositional 
cheese standards had been published in the Canada Gazette Part 1 on 16 June 2007 and that the 
corresponding notification was made on 29 June 2007.  He invited inte rested Members to submit their 
comments prior to the deadline of 30 August 2007. 
(ii) Chinese Taipei - Anti-theft Regulations for Vehicles (G/TBT/N/TPKM/45) 
14. The representative of the European Communities  raised an issue with respect to the intention 
of Chinese Taipei to introduce, as of 1 Octobe r 2007, the obligation to mark certain vehicle 
components with so-called "anti-theft vehicle iden tification numbers".  In April 2007 his delegation 
had made comments, requesting that anti-theft systems based on mechanical or electronic devices, the so-called immobilisers, which were  in accordance with the releva nt UNECE regulations should be 
considered as equivalent to the devices proposed by  the Chinese Taipei regulations.  He appreciated 
the reply from Chinese Taipei which clarified that an exemption from the marking requirements for G/TBT/M/42 
Page 4  
 
  vehicles which complied with the relevant UNECE re gulations had been made, provided that each car 
manufacturer would apply for an exemption for one vehicle model.  If the anti-theft device would then prove to be effective, the exemption might be extended to other vehicles equipped with the same 
device.   
15. The representative of the European Communities sought further clarification on whether the 
exemption would be granted on a general basis or only  on an annual basis, in which case it would lead 
to an unnecessary administrative burden.  He believed that an authorisation to use an internationally 
recognised mechanical or electronic anti-theft device should, in principle, be granted without a time limitation.  Additionally, he sought clarifi cation on whether the exemption from the marking 
requirement was limited to one car model or if it w ould apply to all car models  which were fitted with 
the same electronic or mechanical anti-theft device, the so-called "immobilisers." 
16. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 took note of the questions.  He pointed out that further 
discussion could be held bilaterally and that a res ponse would be provided in writing in due course.  
(iii) United States - Flammability of Clothing Textiles (G/TBT/N/USA/242) 
17. The representative of China  stated that comments had been provided to the Enquiry Point 
regarding the above-mentioned meas ure.  While he understood the obj ective of protecting human life 
and health, he found some requirements in the current  regulation to be more trade restrictive than 
necessary.  He invited the United States to observe the principle of least trade restrictiveness under the 
TBT Agreement and to reduce the impact of its regulation on international trade. 
18. First, the representative of China noted that th e draft standard stipulated that "all samples 
shall be dry-cleaned before they undergo the la undering procedure", which meant that refreshing 
methods included both dry-cleaning and water-cleani ng.  Since dry-cleaning was suitable for some 
fabrics and water-cleaning was suitable for others, he suggested that the United States should make a 
revision to require that only one refreshing method be  set in this step.  Second, he understood that 
there had been reports of fire accidents and agre ed that some fabrics might be controlled.  He 
suggested that the United States make a "suspicious  fabric list", which included only those fabrics 
with high potential risk, rather than restricting all fabrics.   
19. Third, the representative of China noted that th e draft standard did no t apply to hats, gloves 
and footwear, while scarves were not mentioned.  His delegation was not clear whether the standard 
would apply to scarves and suggested that the United States should clarify that it did not apply to them.  Finally, he noted that the notification did not indicate the proposed date of adoption and entry into force.  Taking into account the difficulties of  the manufacturers to adapt their production to the 
new standard, he suggested that the United States should offer developing Members at least one year 
for adaptation, so that the industry could have su fficient time to implement the new requirements.  
20. The representative of the United States
 stressed that the Consumer Products Safety 
Commission (CPSC) was not intending to amend the s ubstance of the Standard for the Flammability 
of Clothing Textiles, but was updating the language of the regulation, the text of which had been 
unchanged since the 1950's.  As such, China's comments did not pertain to new provisions but to 
requirements that had been part of the regulation for over 50 years.  Nevertheless, he pointed out that 
CPSC was considering carefully China's comment s in its review of the updated regulation. 
(iv) United States - Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions (G/TBT/N/USA/249) 
21. The representative of China  appreciated the notification made by the United States and 
understood the efforts of local authorities to protect  the environment and human health by amending 
the requirement for the control of volatile orga nic compound (VOC) emissions for use in consumer  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 5 
 
 
  and commercial products. However, his delegation was concerned with some of the limiting values 
for VOC, which were set at a level more stringent  than the US Code of Federal Regulations  
(40CFR Part 59).  This would greatly increase the co st of production and testing, make the procedures 
more complicated and impose an additional burden on manufacturers.  He believed that such limiting 
values were more trade restrictive than necessary and therefore not in line with the principle of least 
trade restrictiveness under the TBT Agreement.  He i nvited the United States to justify the stringent 
limiting value, in accordance with Article 2.5 of the TBT Agreement. 
22. The representative of China further pointed out that the draft requirement adopted US EPA 
methods and SCAQMD methods rather than existing a nd prevailing international standards, such as 
ISO 11890.  Additionally, the proposed definition of VOC was not in line with the definition 
contained in ISO 11890.  He believed that this was not in line with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, 
which provided that Members should base their techni cal regulations on international standards, and 
invited the United States to bring its measure into conf ormity with international standards.  Finally, he 
noted that the draft requirement differentiated the lim its of VOC for different types of coatings, i.e. 
coatings of aqueous type and solvent-based coa tings. As the difference between these two types of 
coatings was significant, and consiste nt with international practice, he  believed it was necessary to set 
different limits and invited the United States to do so .  He pointed out that hi s delegation had also sent 
detailed comments to the US Enquiry Point. 
23. The representative of the United States  took note of the comments made and said that a 
response would be provided.  He cautioned Members with respect to Article 23.2(a) of the DSU, 
which provided that Members were not permitted  to make unilateral de terminations of non-
compliance with WTO rules outside of the procedures of the DSU.  He also stressed that nothing in 
the TBT Agreement required Members to use a particular standard from a particular standard-setting body, and that the Decision of the TBT Committee that set out the principles to be used in development of international sta ndards did not make any mention of  any particular standardising 
body. 
4 
(v) Israel – Infant Formula  
24. The representative of the United States  raised concerns with respect to Israeli Ministry of 
Health regulations governing the sale of infant form ula.  He pointed out that the US TBT Enquiry 
Point had sent two separate requests on 10 April and 15 May 2007 for copies of all relevant Israeli Ministry of Health regulations on the sale of infa nt formula, as well as related information on infant 
formula laboratory testing, renewal of infant formula product licences and administrative fees, but 
Israel had not provided a response.  He noted that US industry had alleged that  Israel's regulations on 
infant formula unfairly discriminated against imports, that the documentation requirements for 
imported infant formula frequently  changed without prior notice or publication to importers, and that 
no public written criteria governing the a pproval of infant formula existed. 
25. The representative of Israel
 took note of the concerns raised. 
(vi) Chinese Taipei – Plastic trays and packaging (G/TBT/N/TPKM/43) 
26. The representative of the European Communities  was concerned that, under the terms of the 
notified draft proposal, some retailers  would have to reduce the use of plastic containers at an annual 
rate of 25 per cent.  While sharing the objective of the protection of the environment through conservation of resources and waste reduction, her delegation had expressed concerns in writing that 
the proposal might lead to unfair competition, as only hypermarkets and s upermarkets would be 
subject to this limitation, while convenience stores would not have to comply with it.   
                                                     
 
4G/TBT/1/Rev.8, 23 May 2002, page 26-29 . G/TBT/M/42 
Page 6  
 
  27. The representative of the European Communities noted that, in their reply, Chinese Taipei 
had argued that the measure was not discriminatory  because it targeted both national and international 
supermarket or hyperm arket chains.  However, the EC delega tion remained concerned that it would 
have a different impact on domestic  and imported goods, as it would par ticularly effect the foodstuffs 
that were manufactured abroad, and shipped to Chinese Taipei.  She thanked Chinese Taipei for 
extending the implementation period, but believed th at the proposed timetable was still too short to 
comply with.  Finally, she wondered whether the Chinese Taipei authorities were considering 
extending the measure to other types of distribution chains, to comply with Article 2.1 of the TBT 
Agreement concerning national treatment.   
28. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 recalled that his delegation had been in contact with the 
European Communities several times on this issue, and that a written response had been provided.  He 
took note of the concerns raised. 
(vii) European Communities - Dangerous Chemical  Substances - Draft Commission Directive 
amending Council Directive 67/548/EEC  (G/TBT/N/EEC/151) 
29. The representative of the United States  raised concerns about the possible adverse impacts of 
the European Communities' proposed classification of borates as a Category 2 dangerous substance 
under EC Directive 67/548 on Dangerous Substances.   His delegation was of the view that the 
proposal was disproportionate and could restrict trad e.  He stressed that borates had been used for 
hundreds of years and were a key ingredient in sev eral products produced in Europe and throughout 
the world.  They gave flexibility to glass, enabling it to be used as energy-saving insulation and for 
long lasting ceramics.  They were also added to fe rtilisers to correct for boron deficiencies in the soil 
and could significantly increase crop yields.  Borat es also improved the performance of detergents and 
cleaners and could also be used as household pesticides.  Most people's greatest exposure to borates was through a normal diet. 
30. The representative of the United States stressed that a classification under Category 2 of the 
EC Directive would require downstream products cont aining borates above a certain concentration to 
carry a skull and crossbones label, which could r esult in automatic bans on the use of borates in 
certain products and add greatly to handling co sts for others.  He believed that this was a 
disproportionately restrictive classification for borates, which would unnecessarily narrow the choices 
available and raise costs for pr oducers seeking to develop more energy-efficient products.  
Additionally, it could gene rate other unintended consequences su ch as utilization of substances that 
could potentially pose greater hazards.  
31. Furthermore, the representative of the Unite d States noted that a recent study conducted by 
the Centre for Economics and Business Research show ed that the Category 2 classification would cost 
industry approximately 400 million US Dollars in new plant and equipment to make the necessary 
production changes.  The US and other borate-pr oducers had estimated potential commercial losses 
from a Category 2 classification at approximately 200 million US Dollars annually by 2009.  The 
representative of the United States hoped that the Eu ropean Communities would classify borates in a 
manner that was less trade restrictive than its cu rrent proposal and more proportionate to the risks 
posed by normal handling and use. 
32. The representative of Turkey
 appreciated that dangerous or toxic substances should be 
carefully handled in order to prevent any risk to  humans, animals or the environment, and had no 
objection on measures to this aim that were put into  force in line with the principles set down in the 
Council Directive 67/548 EC.  Her delegation also r ecognised the importance of the objectives of the 
protection of human health and safety in the TBT context.  However, she expressed doubts about the 
legal basis of the EC's proposal to classify th ese substances as toxic to the human health.    G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 7 
 
 
  33. It was Turkey's view that the criteria fo r normal handling and use on which classification 
decisions should be based were not applied properly.   In particular, the representative of Turkey  
noted that studies on animals were not relevant to human exposure to borates.  The adverse effects on 
animals had only been observed at very high doses, which could not be reached by humans under normal handling and use of sodium borates and boric acid.  Additionally, in the context of the TBT 
Agreement, her delegation believed that this classi fication was not based on available scientific and 
technical data, and that it did not consider the end use of borates.  Therefore, it was Turkey's view that the proposed draft regulation classifying sodium borates and boric acid as dangerous substances did 
not serve to protect human health or safety, and had the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade.  She invited the European Co mmunities to amend the regulations in light of its 
WTO obligations.  Detailed comments had been sent to the EC TBT Enquiry Point.  
34. The representative of Australia
 shared the concerns expressed and sought more information 
on the draft measure from the European Communities. 
35. The representative of Argentina  echoed the views expressed and noted that comments and 
questions on this measure had been sent to the European Communities. 
36. The representative of Malaysia  recognized the rights of any WTO Member to introduce 
regulations to protect the environment and the health  and safety of its citizens, but was of the view 
that the proposed measure would affect Malaysia 's trade in timber products, in particular, borate-
treated rubber wood products. 
37. Malaysia's concerns mainly related to three asp ects: first, there was no adequate justification 
for recommending a Category 2 classification, as it was not based on any proven result that borates 
were toxic to human reproduction under normal handling and use.  She noted that there was a shift in 
focus from oral ingestion to a justification based on the occupational hazard from inhalation of borate 
dust.  Exposure levels from inhalation were unscien tifically assumed to have equivalent effects as 
exposure levels from ingestion.  In addition, li sting borates under Category 2 had been done before 
the results of the Austrian Risk  Assessment study had proved conclusively that there was risk to 
human fertility from exposure. 
38. Second, her delegation was concerned about the ef fect of such regulations on borate-treated 
timber products.  Despite assurances received fro m the European Commun ities that the proposed 
measure would not lead to the banning or severe restriction of borate-treated timber, she expressed concerns as to whether the Marketing Use Directiv e (76/769/EC) or REACH could result in the ban of 
timber treated with borates; or that labelling of such products with cautionary statements would 
convey a negative perception among consumers.  She pointed out that, as a result of the classification, 
EC member States might unilaterally sanction further r estrictions, as had been experienced in the past.  
She stressed that the rationale for the restricti on on use of borates and the labelling requirements had 
nothing to do with the products itself, but with the production process.  Hence, there was no justification to regulate trade of the products.  Rath er, any risk should be addressed through health and 
safety protection rules and measures for workers. 
39. Third, the representative of Malaysia believe d that, under normal handling and use, products 
such as furniture that were treated with borates w ould not pose a danger to the user.  Therefore, her 
delegation was of the view that the proposed EC m easure was more trade restrictive than necessary to 
protect health, safety and the environment or to meet any other legitimate regulatory objectives, and was inconsistent with Article 2 of the TBT Agreemen t.  The measure would result in trade restrictions 
which could impair Malaysia's ability to market one of its major export items, products made of 
rubber wood and this could have significant socio- economic implications.  Finally, she noted that 
written comments had been submitted and invited the European Communities to reconsider the 
proposal to list borates under Category 2 of the Directive 67/548/EEC.   G/TBT/M/42 
Page 8  
 
  40. The representative of Chile
 pointed out that her country was reviewing the list of the 896 
substances whose classification would be modified  under the proposed measure, and that included 
borates.  Their classification would be changed to  Category 2 "toxic for reproduction".  While her 
delegation recognised the right of the European Co mmunities to protect health and the environment, 
the proposed modification would be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the desired objective.  
She noted that comments on the proposed amendmen t had been submitted and hoped that they would 
be taken into account.  She also believed that b ilateral contacts on this matter would be useful. 
41. The representative of Japan  echoed the concerns expressed. 
42. The representative of China  sought additional information from the European Communities 
on this measure.  He explained that comments fro m industry and relevant stakeholders were being 
solicited in China, which would then be transmitted to the European Communities. 
43. On the same notification, but on a different product, the representative of Canada stressed that 
Canadian industry stakeholders had expressed concer ns regarding the proposed classification of nickel 
carbonates contained in the proposed EC measure, which was believed not to be based on science, a 
concern which also applied to the classification of borates.  He was concerned that the classification 
would be used as a reference for assessing additional nickel substances and that the approach utilised 
might then be used as a model fo r future assessments under REACH.  His delegation had an interest 
in ensuring that assessments of substances, incl uding those made under REACH, were scientifically 
based and conducted in an appropriate manner.   
44. The representative of Canada  stressed that his country, as a major producer and exporter of 
nickel and related substances, had a major trade inte rest in ensuring that this measure did not represent 
an unnecessary barrier to trade.  He said that comments would be submitted to the European 
Communities and looked forward to receiving clarification on this issue. 
45. The representative of Australia  was also concerned about the pr oposed classification of nickel 
carbonates, which would imply that these products – a nd products containing them – would have to 
carry a label indicating that they presented serious h ealth and environmental risks.  In particular, her 
delegation's concerns related to the process used  to assess the hazards associated with nickel 
carbonates.  Her understanding was that the Eu ropean Communities had used a non-testing 
methodology referred to as the "read-across methodol ogy".  While her delegation was not opposed to 
this methodology in principle, concerns were raised with the way it had been applied in this case, in 
particular with respect to the fact that the cl assification of nickel carbonates might be based on a 
derogation which would not be scientifically valid.  She noted that the European Communities did not 
appear to have verified that nickel carbonate s and the reference chemicals were sufficiently 
comparable when it took its decision. 
46. Furthermore, the representative of Australia poi nted out that the draft Directive was more 
trade restrictive than necessary to  fulfil the legitimate objective and that over-classification of some 
nickel compounds might result.  Her delegation, like others, was concerned that the European 
Communities might be considering this process as a model for future classification decisions under 
REACH.  She noted that comments had been subm itted and hoped that they would be taken into 
account in the finalisation of the EC's legislation. 
47. The representative of the United States  associated his delegation with many of the comments 
made by Canada and Australia with respect to the classification of nickel carbonates and expressed 
the hope that the European Communities would classi fy nickel carbonates in a manner that was less 
trade restrictive than its current proposal.  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 9 
 
 
  48. The representative of the European Communities  explained that the Draft Commission 
Directive notified on 4 May 2007, introducing and modifying the EU harmonised classification and 
labelling requirements for 896 substances, sought to en sure the protection of human health and of the 
environment.  He noted that the comments receive d were being examined by experts and invited 
interested delegations to submit comments with in the deadline, which had been extended to 
11 July 2007.  He informed the Committee that the adoption of the measure had been postponed from 
the end of July until September 2007. 
(viii) Qatar – Motor Vehicles Tyres (G/TBT/N/QAT/11) 
49. The representative of the European Communities  pointed out that comments on the above 
notification had been made in September 2006, but th at no reply had been received.  He noted that 
there was a specification concerning tread wear, traction and temperature resistance of tyres, which 
required the marking of these specific indications on  all tyres, and no exemption was provided for off-
road tyres which were used, for example, for industr ial vehicles in the desert.  The current practice in 
the United States, the European Communities and ot her markets was that the off-road tyres were 
normally exempted from the marking requirements regarding tread wear, traction and temperature 
resistance.  He stressed that not  having an exemption for off-road tyres would lead to obstacles to 
trade and would imply considerable costs for industr y and invited the authorities of Qatar to consider 
the introduction of an exemption clause for off-road  tyres in order to avoid unnecessary obstacles to 
trade. 
(ix) India – Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 2007 
50. The representative of the United States  drew the Committee's atten tion to the above measure, 
which further amended the Drugs a nd Cosmetic Rules of 1945.  It was his delegation's understanding 
that the proposed amendment introduced a new regist ration system for cosmetic products that would 
be overly burdensome, unreasonably costly and cause unnecessary delays in bringing such products to 
the market. In addition, the registration system appeared to be targeted only at imports.   
51. On 22 May 2007, an enquiry had been sent to India through the US TBT enquiry point, 
requesting that India consider notifying the pro posed amendment and delay enforcement so as to 
allow a reasonable time for all interested parti es to make comments and to afford suppliers a 
reasonable interval to comply with any requireme nts.  However, India had not responded to the 
request, and the status of the measure was unclear. 
52. The representative of India  took note of the concerns expressed. 
(x) Turkey - Product-tracking system for alcoholic beverages and other products 
53. The representative of the United States  raised concerns on the above proposed product-
tracking system for alcoholic beverages and other pr oducts, originally planned to enter into force on 
19 June 2007 but whose effective date had been extended to 24 July 2007.  The measure would ban 
the sale of certain products unless strip-stamps with encoded security features were affixed to the products.  He appreciated that, as a result of a productive dialogue between Turkey and interested 
industries, several constructive cha nges had been made to the proposed  strip-stamp regime.  However, 
concerns remained with the regulation's potential impact on trade, as it appeared to discriminate 
against imported products.  For example, strip-stamps for imported spirits that were applied in Turkey 
appeared to cost six times as much as the sa me stamps for domestically produced spirits. 
54. The representative of the United States noted that  the proposed regulation appeared to be an 
applicable administrative provision with respect to certain listed products, with which compliance was 
mandatory.  Therefore, he requested Turkey to notify the measure to the TBT Committee and provide G/TBT/M/42 
Page 10  
 
  an opportunity for WTO Members to make comments.  He also sought assurance that the system 
would be implemented in a non-discriminatory fash ion, and invited Turkey to provide a further 
extension of the effective date to ensure that the system was fully operational from a technical 
perspective before any strip-stamp requirement  was enforced, so as not to disrupt trade. 
55. The representative of Turkey
 explained that the proposed product-tracking system for 
alcoholic and other products aimed at ensuring that  these products were imported legally into Turkey, 
and the use of strip-stamps was based on financial considerations.  She conf irmed that the General 
Communiqué had been amended follo wing consultations with industry, and noted that the dialogue 
with industry and interested Members was ongoing.   
56. With regard to the TBT notification, Turkey was of the opinion that the Communiqué did not 
lay down any product characteristics or their re lated process and productio n methods, nor did it 
include or deal exclusively with terminology symbol s, packaging, marking or labelling requirements.  
Instead, it was exclusively based on financial pur poses.  Thus, it was her delegation's understanding 
that it did not fall under the TBT Agreement and that a notification to the TBT Committee was not necessary.  Finally, she expressed her delegation's willingness to continue bila teral consultations on 
the issue. 
(xi) Hong Kong – Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme (G/TBT/N/HKG/26 and Add.1) 
57. The representative of th e European Communities
 raised an issue with respect to the proposed 
mandatory energy efficiency labelling scheme, wh ich would require that test results submitted by 
manufacturers be issued by a laboratory accredited by the Hong Kong authorities, or by a facility in a country with which Hong Kong ha d concluded a Mutual Recognition Agreement.  This measure 
would force EC manufacturers to have the product s tested in external laboratories, and would 
transform this requirement into a mandatory third party certification requirement.  She believed that 
this measure would be more trade-restrictive than  necessary to achieve the objective pursued, in light 
of Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement.  She expressed her delegation's request that Hong Kong 
reconsider the need for having third party involvement in this proposal. 
(xii) Brazil –  Registration requirements for medical devices 
58. The representative of the United States
 expressed concerns about Brazil's proposed 
registration requirements for medical devices, whic h would require manufacturers to submit detailed 
economic data with each product registration.  Of particular concern were proposed revisions to 
Resolution 185, which would require companies seeki ng to register or re-register a medical device to 
submit information concerning ma nufacturers' pricing data, includi ng tax and distribution margin 
information; anticipated sales volumes; intended retail  price of the product in Brazil; estimated sales 
and marketing expenses; and a list of substitute  products in the Brazilian market and their 
corresponding prices.  He pointed out that much of the requested information could not be provided, because it either did not exist or was not public ly available.  For example, it was the US 
understanding that there was no publ ished database of prices for medical devices around the world.  
Furthermore, some of the requested data, such as information on prices, anticipated sales volumes and 
expected marketing costs were highly sensitive business-proprietary information and no assurance 
was provided that the information would be kept confidential. 
59. It was the view of the United States that th e proposed revision to Resolution 185 could have 
the effect that companies refrain from shipping such products to Brazil.  The issue had been raised 
bilaterally by the United States, but no response ha d been received.  Braz il needed to notify the 
measure to the WTO and indicate the status of the measure, and whether US comments had been 
taken into account.  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 11 
 
 
  60. The representative of the European Communities  expressed his delegation's interest in 
obtaining an update on the status of the proposed am endment to the Resolution and states his intention 
to examine the proposal and raise possible concerns at a later date. 
61. The representative of Brazil  took note of the concerns raised. 
(xiii) India - Mandatory Certification of Ceramic Tiles (G/TBT/N/IND/28) 
62. The representative of the European Communities  raised concerns regarding ceramic tiles 
exported to India, which would be subject to a mandatory certification procedure carried out by a 
laboratory approved by the Bureau of Indian Standa rds.  The European Communities wished to obtain 
information from the Indian authorities as to whet her the Indian standard BIS 15622 was based on an 
international standard as required by Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, such as ISO 13006.  The 
European Communities were furthermore concerned by the labelling and marking requirements which 
apparently differed from international practices. 
63. The representative of India  took note of the concerns expressed. 
(xiv) China - Nature of "recommended standards" 
64. The representative of Japan  sought clarification about the status of the so-called 
"recommended standards".5  For "recommended standards", he meant those which had a "T" at the 
end of the standard symbol (for example GBT as opposed to GB and JST as opposed to JS).  In 
particular, could there be cases where these standards de facto  functioned as mandatory standards? 
For example, if a regulation such as China's Ad ministration of the Control of Pollution caused by 
Electronic and Information Products" (Chinese RoHS),6 stipulated that certain goods must conform to 
the recommended standards, then a TBT notification should be made, especially if the standard in 
question was not internationally harmonised.  He  wondered whether it would be correct to assume 
that, when a "recommended standard" was not notified under the TBT Agreement and was not 
internationally harmonized, it w ould not be used as a basis for any mandatory measures. 
65. Furthermore, the representative of Japan noted  that when a regulation stipulated that a 
"recommended standard" must be adhered to, often it  did not specify which individual standard must 
be met.  For example, in the case of the Chin ese RoHS, Article 3.3.4 prohibited the import of 
electronic and information products that did not meet  the national or industrial standards pertaining to 
the restriction of hazardous substances in electronic and information products.  He believed that this 
was vague and difficult to comply with, especially for foreign firms.  He requested that China 
established a clear distinction between technical regul ations and standards, as per Annex 1 of the TBT 
Agreement. 
66. The representative of China  explained that in his country there were national standards, sector 
standards, local standards and enterprise standards.  He clarified that mandatory standards, according 
to the Law on Standardization were considered as technical regulations and therefore complied with 
the TBT Agreement.  He took note of the questi ons raised by Japan and stated that additional 
information would be provided. 
                                                      
5 See G/TBT/M/41, para. 10-11 
6 See para. 75-76 below. G/TBT/M/42 
Page 12  
 
  2. Previously Raised Concerns 
(i) United States – Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) (G/TBT/N/USA/25, G/TBT/N/USA/83 
and Corr.1, G/TBT/N/USA/281) 
67. The representative of Mexico
 was concerned that the US regulation on country of origin 
labelling could pose an unnecessary barriers to trade a nd stressed that Mexican exports of live animals 
and meat would be affected.  He wondered whethe r the introduction of this measure was consistent 
with WTO obligations.  His country would continue  internal consultations to identify which sectors 
would be affected by this measure. 
68. The representative of Canada  recalled that his delegation had ra ised concerns on this measure 
at several TBT Committee meetings and pointed out that the United States had not yet responded to 
these concerns.  He noted that on 20 June 2007 the US  Department of Agriculture had re-opened the 
comment period for its proposed rule for mandatory country of origin labelling for beef, lamb, pork, 
perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts.  Simultaneously, the USDA had also re-opened the 
comment period for its interim final rule for mandato ry COOL for fish, shellf ish and shellfish-covered 
commodities which had been implemented in April 2005.   He stressed that the US mandatory country 
of origin labelling requirements implemented for fish and shellfish had created significant costs and 
was a burden for Canada's fishing industry and that there were trade problems relating to labelling of 
live lobsters that had yet to be rectified.  His de legation was disappointed with the apparent plans to 
implement mandatory country of or igin labelling provisions for impor ted beef, pork and various other 
commodities.   
69. The representative of Canada noted that the st ated intent of the measure was to provide 
consumers with additional information on which to  base their purchasing decisions.  He believed, 
however, that the United States had yet to provide ev idence that mandatory country of origin labelling 
would benefit consumers as a reta il-labelling programme. On the cont rary, domestic support for the 
programme appeared to be producer-driven.  His de legation also found it confusing that in the latest 
notification on the subject (G/TBT/N/USA/281), the Un ited States had indicated that the intent of the 
measure was also to protect human health even though the measure had been notified to the TBT 
Committee and had not been character ized as a food safety measure.  In particular, he found this 
inconsistent with the proposed rule for beef, lamb, pork perishable agricultural commodities and 
peanuts where the USDA ha d stated: "Country of origin labelling is a retail-labelling programme and 
as such does not address food safety or animal health  concerns."  In his delegation's view, further 
implementation of the requirements as currently drafted would create an unnecessary technical barrier 
to trade and would be inconsistent with the Un ited States' obligations under the TBT Agreement, 
particularly since voluntary alternatives existed.  He  asked that the current re quirements for fish and 
shellfish be repealed and that plans for manda tory country of origin labelling for remaining 
commodities be abandoned. 
70. The representative of New Zealand  recalled that his delegati on had made three bilateral 
statements to the United States on this issue, in 2002, 2003 and 2004.  His delegation was opposed to 
the imposition of mandatory COOL on the basis of its likely trade-restrictive effects, its irrelevance to food safety requirements and the high implementation costs involved.  He stressed that Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement required that technical regulati ons be no more trade-restrictive than necessary to 
fulfil a legitimate objective and believed that there were questions about the consistency of mandatory 
COOL with this requirement.  He noted that th e stated intent of the measure was to provide 
consumers with information on which to base th eir purchasing decisions and pointed out that the 
provision of consumer information was not identified in Article 2.2 as a legitimate objective for the 
use of mandatory technical regulations.  Even if consumer information was a legitimate objective, the 
imposition of mandatory COOL would impose high implementation costs that would be  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 13 
 
 
  disproportionate to the risks.  Ultimately, COOL w ould not benefit consumers as it would add costs to 
all stages of the production process. 
71. Like Canada, the representative of New Zealand noted that the United States had indicated the 
protection of human health as an objective of the measure and believed that mandatory COOL would 
have no effect on human health.  Existing US laws  which did not include mandatory COOL ensured 
that all imported and domestically produced food me t high sanitary standards and were safe to eat.  
Another objective of the measure was the preven tion of deceptive practices, and his delegation 
believed that this could be achie ved more effectively and in a less trade-restrictive manner through 
use of domestic legislation aimed at protecting c onsumer rights. Examples of such legislation 
included the Fair Trading Act in New Zealand and the Fair Labelling and Packaging Act in the United 
States. 
72. With regard to the second part of Article 2.2,  the representative of New Zealand stressed that 
mandatory COOL would be more trade-restrictive than necessary as it would impose a significant cost 
burden on the targeted food industr ies, which would eventually be passed on to consumers.  For 
blended products sourced from many countries, the cost of listing the countries of origin were 
significant and this could lead to de facto  discrimination towards sourcing from domestic products so 
as to ease the administrative burden.  His delegation was of the view that voluntary country of origin labelling requirements would be a better option an d that if consumers di stinguished between goods 
based on country of origin, strong commercial incentiv es existed for firms to act without the need for 
government intervention. 
73. The representative of the United States
 took note of the concerns expressed.  He pointed out 
that, on 20 June 2007, the US Department of Agri culture had published propo sed regulatory actions in 
the US Federal Register which provided interested  parties with an opportunity to comment on a 
mandatory COOL programme for the commodities covered under the 2002 Farm Bill. The comment 
period deadline was 20 August 2007.  He explained th at USDA was required to implement the COOL 
provisions of the Farm Bill in accordance with US  law, and in a manner that provided credible 
country of origin information to consumers with the least possible cost and burden to the production 
and marketing infrastructure.  He further stressed  that the United States was committed to implement 
COOL in a fair and balanced manner. 
74. The representative of the United States noted that comments had been received from several 
parties, including Canada, on the requirements fo r fish and shellfish during previous comment 
periods.  As a result of those comments, USDA had ma de changes to the interim final rule, including 
more flexible labelling requirements with respect  to blended products from multiple origins. 
(ii) China – Administration on the Control of Po llution Caused by Electronic Information 
Products (G/TBT/N/CHN/140 and Add.1) 
75. The representative of Japan  reiterated her delegation's concerns  about the above measure.  It 
was her delegation's understanding that China's regula tion on the "Administration of the Control of 
Pollution Caused by Electric Information Products" (Chinese RoHS) stipulated that electronic and IT 
products listed in the "Heavy Control Catalogue fo r Pollution Caused by Electronic and Information 
Products" must undergo mandatory conformity asse ssment through the CCC scheme.  She requested 
that China use an international standard as a b asis for the mandatory testing methods, and that a 
notification with a 60 day comment period be made to the TBT Committee. 
76. The representative of China  took note of the concerns raised and said that a response would 
be provided. G/TBT/M/42 
Page 14  
 
  (iii) Thailand – Labelling Requirement for Snack Foods (G/TBT/THA/215) 
77. The representative of the United States
 recalled that his delegati on had raised this concern 
regarding Thailand's proposed labelling regime at the previous meeting of the Committee7 and noted 
that comments had also been submitted to Thailand's Enquiry Point although a reply had not yet been provided.  In particular, his delegation continued to  have questions about which criteria Thailand used 
to regulate some products and not others and about the colour scheme approach, including the basis 
for classifying products as green, yellow or red. 
78. The representative of Thailand
 stated that relevant authorities in capital had been informed of 
the issue and that they had taken into account the comments made by the Unite d States and Australia.  
As a result, the notification was being re-drafted and was in its final phase. 
(iv) European Communities - Fire Performance of Construction Products (G/TBT/N/EEC/92 and 
Add.1) 
79. The representative of Japan  had some remaining concerns re garding the above EC Decision, 
in particular about the evidence of the acidity crite ria in the scope of the buildings involved.  He 
pointed out that, prior to the meeting of the TBT Committee, his delegation had sent a document 
outlining these concerns to the representative from the European Communities, and requested that a 
response be provided. 
80. The representative of the European Communities  informed the Committee that the notified 
Decision had been adopted in October 2006 as Commission Decision 2006/751/EC.  The comments from Japan had been forwarded to experts and a reply would be provided.  He invited Japan to inform 
the European Commission of any specific problem encountered by industries and stressed that no 
problems had been reported to the Commission since the entry into force of the Decision which was, 
he noted, a voluntary classification for member States. 
(v) European Communities – Ecodesign requirements  for energy-using products (“EuP”)  
81. The representative of China
 was concerned with recent deve lopments regarding the above-
mentioned "EuP Directive"8, which required EC member States to  adopt relevant dom estic regulations 
for its implementation no later than 18 August 20 07.  He was concerned that, in the process of 
implementing the Directive, member States could adopt regulations which might differ from one to 
another, including with respect to product covera ge.  He requested the European Communities to 
fulfil its transparency obligations under the TBT Agreement and notify WTO Members of new 
developments, especially with respect to disparity in regulations adopted by member States.  He 
further stressed that Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement required Members to use international 
standards as a basis for their technical regulations.   
82. The representative of China also pointed out th at developing country Members faced special 
difficulties in meeting the EC member States' regul ations, and invited the European Communities to 
provide enough time to developing country Members to comply with the measure, so that their industry had the necessary time to make appropriate adjustments to minimize the negative impact of 
the regulations on international trade.  He also  invited the European Communities to consider 
arrangements to provide technical assistance to developing Members. 
                                                     
 
7 G/TBT/M/41, para 14. 
8 Directive 2005/32 of the European Parliament a nd of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a 
framework for the setting of eco-design requirements for energy-using products (“EuP”) and amending Council 
Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 15 
 
 
  83. The representative of the European Communities  informed the Committee that the 
implementation phase for the EuP Directive had started and that studies were being carried out by independent consultants to identify the categories of products for which specific requirements for 
energy efficiency should be set.  For the mome nt, the EC member States were only obliged to 
implement international legislation, as the EuP Direc tive was a framework Directive.  The attention of 
the Committee was drawn to the relevant websites.
9 
(vi) European Communities - Regulation on the Regi stration, Evaluation and Authorisation of 
Chemicals (REACH) (G/TBT/N/EEC/52, Add. 1-4 and Add.3/Rev.1) 
84. The representative of Canada  recalled that, at the previous meeting of the Committee, his 
delegation had requested that the European Communities notify the draft technical guidance 
documents that had been developed under REACH im plementation projects in a manner similar to the 
notifications provided on REACH legislation.10  He welcomed the notification made on 11 June 2007 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.4) which provided the we bsite where technical guidance documents were 
available, but was disappointed that the draft vers ions of these documents had not been notified.  
Canada would review these docum ents and provide comments or questions as appropriate.  He 
wondered whether other technical guidance documents  were being developed or expected to be 
developed and reiterated hi s delegation's request that these be notified at the draft stage so as to 
provide an opportunity for Members to submit comments. 
85. The representative of Canada further noted that  the European Communities were developing a 
draft regulation regarding the fee structure for re gistration under REACH for adoption and publication 
in early 2008.  He sought confirmation that this re gulation would be notified at the draft stage with 
adequate opportunity for Members to comment.  He  stressed that Canada, both as a regulator and a 
trading partner, had an interest in seeing a wo rkable REACH in Europe and looked forward to 
continued cooperation and dialogue with the Commission authorities as REACH moved into implementation.  
86. The representative of Japan
 thanked the European Communities for the comprehensive 
explanation of REACH that had been provided at  various TBT Committee meetings, and invited the 
European Communities to fully take into account the c oncerns raised by his delegation.  With respect 
to the technical guidance documents, he stressed that  some issues remained to be clarified, such as: 
(i) the concrete operation of the "Substance Informa tion Exchange Forum" (SIEF); (ii) the definition 
and practical application of the c oncept of "article"; and (iii) the classification regarding substances to 
be registered.  He noted that the technical guida nce documents needed be clear and easy to use for 
foreign companies and hoped that the European Commission would complete the remaining guidance 
documents as soon as possible. 
87. The representative of Korea  was concerned that industries were still facing uncertainty, 
especially with respect to substances in articles and noted that some of the technical guidance 
documents which could enhance unders tanding had not yet been completed.  He invited the European 
Communities to complete these documents as soon as possible and to provide other Members with 
more information-sharing opportunities at the development stage of these documents. 
88. The representative of Korea stressed that, rega rding the implication of the REACH to non-EC 
manufacturers and the discriminatory effect, it wa s more difficult for non-EU manufacturers to 
comply than for EU manufacturers, especially in the case of producers of articles and manufacturers of polymers.  It was his understanding that even though the manufacturers outside Europe registered 
                                                     
 
9http:/ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/eco_design_en.htm and  
http:/ec.europa.eu/enterprise/eco_design/index_en.htm. 
10 G/TBT/M/41, para. 55 G/TBT/M/42 
Page 16  
 
  the basic substances, non-EU manufacturers in the sa me supply chain were also responsible for the 
registration of that substance, whereas EU manufact urers in the same supply chain did not have any 
responsibility for registration.  He requested that  the European Communities find ways to reduce the 
registration burden for non-EU manufacturers in the same supply chain. 
89. The representative of the United States
 noted that questions and concerns with regard to 
REACH implementation remained, including the poten tial for differential enfo rcement across the EC 
member States, uncertainty regarding the scope and applicability of the provisions relating to articles 
and the potential trade ramifications caused by the lim its in existing capacity of laboratory facilities.  
His delegation urged the European Communities to provide more information on the implementation 
of the regulation, including efforts to ed ucate the business community outside Europe. 
90. The representative of Chile  stressed that it was difficult to follow the discussion regarding the 
implementation of REACH on the internet.  In part icular, she wondered which laboratory tests were 
not necessary and her delegation was still unclear about the definition of "articles".  She also pointed 
out that concerns remained about the possible differences in implemen tation of REACH across 
Europe.  In addition, the list of substances subj ect to authorisation as per Annex 14 had not been 
completed.  She also wondered about the pr oposed modification of the Council Directive 
67/548/EEC11 which would be used as a basis for the list of substances subject to authorisation and 
which would include borates and nickels moving to Category 2 level of production risk.  She 
expressed her delegation's interest in participating in training activities in order to facilitate the 
implementation of REACH. 
91. The representative of China  thanked the European Communiti es for the detailed information 
provided at the previous meeting of the Comm ittee but stressed that, as the implementation of 
REACH progressed, concerns remained among Chinese stakeholders, especially with respect to 
registration procedures, which were consider ed complicated and discriminatory for non-EU 
enterprises.  He pointed out once again that deve loping country Members faced special difficulties in 
the implementation of REACH and wondered whethe r the European Communities had foreseen any 
special or transitional arrangements for developing country Members. 
92. The representative of Australia  was interested in receiving more information on the 
implementation of REACH which caused concerns to he r delegation.  In this respect, she referred to 
the comments made on the classification of borates and nickel under the Draft Commission Directive 
on dangerous chemical substances.12  She stressed that if the problems that industries were 
experiencing were not addressed at the beginning  of the implementation phase, not only would 
REACH not achieve its objectives, but it woul d have serious implications on trade. 
93. The representative of the European Communities  noted that the REACH regulation had 
entered into force on 1 June 2007, and that the Eu ropean Agency for Chemicals was responsible for 
its implementation.  He recalled that at the prev ious meeting of the TBT Committee, the relevant 
experts had provided a detailed explanation on REACH.13  With respect to Canada's comments on the 
lack of notification of the technical documents, he  stressed that these were technical guidelines, and 
not regulatory acts.  Therefore, there was not an obligation to notify them in accordance with the 
procedures set out in the TBT Agreement.  Also, it would have been difficult from a practical point of 
view to notify guidance documents as technical regulations and to provide a time period for 
comments.   
                                                      
11 See paras. 29-48, above. 
12 See paras 29-48, above. 
13 See G/TBT/M/41, paras. 23-59   G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 17 
 
 
  94. The Committee's attention was drawn to the webs ite of the European Agency for Chemicals, 
which already contained more than twenty technical guidance documents.14  These were freely 
accessible and covered numerous issues, including guidance on registration; guidance for monomers 
and polymers; and guidance on requi rements for substances and articles.  He stressed that these 
documents could be adapted if stakeholders found them incorrect and confirmed that more guidance 
documents would follow.   
95. With respect to a related regulation on fees,  the representative of the European Communities 
stressed that this would be communicated to the TBT Committee at its draft phase, so that Members were informed at an early stage.  It was still to be decided whether this would be done as an 
addendum on the original notification on REACH, or as a separate notification.   
96. The representative of the European Communities noted that the outstanding concerns would 
be reported back to experts, and stressed that the European Communities was doing its utmost to 
ensure that REACH would be implemented in a non tr ade-restrictive manner.  He further stressed that 
the regulation was not discriminatory and that the pr ovisions of REACH had been elaborated in such 
a way so as to apply equally to both European and third country manufacturers.  On the issue raised 
by Korea regarding monomers, he noted that these had to be registered by a third country if they were 
contained in polymers, but that in principle this provision applied to all manufacturers in the same way.  His delegation would continue this dialogue  in the TBT Committee, bilaterally as well as in 
other fora. 
(vii) Norway - Restrictions on the use of  Deca-bromo diphenylether (deca-BDE) 
(G/TBT/N/NOR/6) 
97. The representative of Japan 
was grateful for a report received by Norway and took note that 
the Norwegian Ministry of Environment was still assessing the proposal and had not yet finalised the decision.  He trusted that Norway would wait un til a court decision was reached on the legal action 
taken by Denmark and the European Parliament re garding non-inclusion of deca-BDE in the RoHS 
Directive.
15  He sought information on the scientific evidence for the proposal, as well as on the 
results of the public hearing, and how views expr essed had been incorporated in the Norwegian 
proposal. 
98. The representative of Jordan , supported by Israel  and the United States , sought an update 
from Norway with respect to their intern al assessment of the proposed measure. 
99. The representative of Norway  recalled that a public hearing on the Norwegian draft regulation 
proposing to ban deca-BDE had been established in the Spring of 2005.  He pointed out that deca-
BDE was a chemical substance of high concern and r estrictions of its use were needed to reduce or 
avoid risks to the environment and to human health.  He further recalled that the prohibition of deca-
BDE was supposed to enter into force on 1 July 20 06 and that the draft regulation had been sent to 
both the national and the international hearing and it  had been duly notified to the TBT Committee.  
However, the regulation did not enter into force on 1 July 2006 as originally proposed as it was being 
scrutinised before a final decision was made.    
100. Regarding the results of the public hearing,  the representative of Norway informed the 
Committee that the proposal had been supported by  environmental and cons umer organizations as 
well as by trade unions; however, opposition had been expressed by industry.  He took note of the 
question from Japan on the scientific evidence and sai d that more information would be provided. 
                                                      
14http://ec.europa.eu/echa/  
15 Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the Us e of certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and 
Electronic Equipment (RoHS) G/TBT/M/42 
Page 18  
 
  (viii) Sweden – Restrictions on the use of  Deca-bromo diphenylether (deca-BDE) 
(G/TBT/N/SWE/59) 
101. The representative of Japan
, supported by Jordan , Israel  and the United States  sought 
information on the status of the discussions between the European Communities and Sweden 
regarding the proposed measure on the restriction on the use of deca-BDE. 
102. The representative of th e European Communities  noted that the Swedish proposal prohibiting 
the marketing of deca-BDE in Sweden had entere d into force on 1 January 2007 and informed the 
Committee that consultations between the Swedis h authorities and the Eur opean Communities were 
still ongoing.  She stressed that careful considera tion was being given to the concerns expressed by 
WTO Members. 
(ix) Philippines - Ceramic wall and floor tiles (G/TBT/N/PHL/77, PHL/63 and PHL/60) 
103. The representative of the European Communities  drew the Committee's attention to the issue 
concerning the standard on ceramic wall and floor ti les and noted that, since the previous meeting of 
the Committee, a dialogue had been established with  the Philippine authorities.  He welcomed the 
decision of the Philippines to revise the national standard by adopting the ISO standard 13006 on 
ceramic tiles and was also pleased that second quality tiles would be allowed into the Philippine 
market.  He pointed out that certain testing methods  prescribed in an international standard would be 
replaced by Philippines testing methods and encour aged the Philippine authorities to notify this 
revised standard to the TBT Committee. 
(x) Switzerland – Measures to Reduce Particle Emissions from Diesel Engines 
(G/TBT/N/CHE/67 and CHE/39) 
104. The representative of Switzerland  informed the Committee that, further to the comments 
received by WTO Members, the Swiss authorities had d ecided not to proceed with the introduction of 
the above mentioned draft ordinance, but to intr oduce the Euro 5 emission limit values of the 
European Union standards for diesel engines. 
105. The representative of th e European Communities  thanked Switzerland for the update and 
welcomed the decision of the Swiss authorities. 
106. The representative of the United States  invited Switzerland to notify these developments to 
the TBT Committee and to provide an opportunity for comments.  
(xi) Korea - Fish Heads 
107. The representative of New Zealand  informed the Committee that  some progress on this issue 
had been signalled by Korea with the announcement of their intention to add hake heads to their 
national food code and the notification of such in tentions to the SPS Committee.  He understood that 
the announced changes to the food code would come into effect before the end of 2007. 
108. The representative of Norway  echoed the comments made by New Zealand and recalled that 
the concern was not only related to hake heads but also to edible fish heads in general.  He noted that 
bilateral consultations ha d taken place and hoped that Korea would continue to act constructively to 
resolve this longstanding issue. 
109. The representative of the European Communities  was disappointed that there had been no 
progress in the signature of a Memorandum of Unde rstanding with Korea on this issue and that trade 
on edible fish heads was still not possible.  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 19 
 
 
  110. The representative of Korea informed the Committee that the provisional draft on the sanitary 
regulations concerning fish head ha d been notified to the SPS Committee16 and hoped that this issue 
would be resolved soon.  He would report back to the authorities in capital the comments made by 
Norway and the European Communities and hoped that  the issue would be resolved on a bilateral 
basis. 
(xii) Brazil – Mandatory certification of batteries 
111. The representative of the European Communities  reiterated the concerns expressed at the 
previous meeting of the Committee about the Brazilian draft regulation by the regulatory agency for telecommunications "Anatel" for mandatory certifi cation of batteries for electronic items, including 
mobile phones.
17  He appreciated the information provide d by Brazil in bilateral contacts, but, 
considering the Brazilian decision not to notif y the measure under Article 2.9.2 of the TBT 
Agreement, was still concerned that mandatory third party certification of batteries – even if based on 
international standards as indicated by Brazil - w ould lead to more trade-restrictive obstacles than 
necessary.  He invited the Brazilian delegation to re consider the necessity of third party certification 
of mobile phone batteries and also to consider no tifying the draft regulation to the TBT Committee. 
112. The representative of Brazil  explained that the aim of the resolution was to address reported 
incidents of battery explosion.  The resolution includ ed an exception to the general rule of third party 
certification by providing the possibility of first part y tests where adequate laboratories did not exist 
in Brazil.  With respect to the notification, he st ressed that the resolution complied with the legitimate 
objectives set out in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreem ent and was based on international standards IEC 
61960, IEC 62133, IEC 6100042.  Therefore, in acco rdance with Article 2.9 and 5.6 of the TBT 
Agreement which provided that a notification shoul d be made in the absence of an international 
standard or if the measure was not based on an existing one, a notification was not necessary. 
113. The representative of Brazil further explaine d that the resolution was still pending the 
approval of the National Council of Telecommunicati ons.  Once approved, a period of 150 days for 
all parties concerned to adjust to the new specif ications would be provide d.  Furthermore, the 
resolution was based on an earlier measure by th e same agency covering the same products, 
Resolution 242, which was still in force. 
114. The representative of the European Communities  sought clarification on whether 
manufacturers could provide self-decla ration of conformity or whethe r laboratory tests outside Brazil 
needed be used. 
115. The representative of Brazil  confirmed that, in exceptional circumstances, a first party test 
could be used.  He would transmit the questions to  the experts and provide more detailed information 
in due time. 
(xiii) Belgium and The Netherlands – Seal products (G/TBT/N/BEL/39 and G/TBT/N/NLD/68) 
116. The representative of Canada  reiterated his delegation's disa ppointment regarding the above 
measures by Belgium and The Netherlands, which his delegation considered to be inconsistent with 
the European Communities' obligations under th e TBT Agreement and the GATT.  He expressed 
strong concerns about declarations made by member States of the European Union and the European Parliament calling for legislation to ban trade in seal products.  With regard to the measures adopted 
by Belgium and the proposed measures by the Neth erlands and Germany, Cana da was concerned that 
appropriate assessments based on all available scien tific and technical evidence had not been made 
                                                     
 
16 G/SPS/N/KOR/243, 7 June 2007 
17 G/TBT/M/41, para. 6-7 G/TBT/M/42 
Page 20  
 
  and that the requirement that barriers to trade be no more restrictive than necessary as stated in article 
2.2 of the TBT Agreement, had not been fulfilled.   
117. The representative of Canada stressed that the Canadian seal population was neither 
endangered nor was it regulated by  the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
(CITES).  The humane hunting methods used in seal  hunts compared favourably to those employed to 
hunt other wild animals and those used to slaughter  domestic livestock in the European Union.  For 
sealing communities in Atlantic Canada, the hunt coul d contribute up to 35 pe r cent of their annual 
income.  For these communities, as well as for Abor iginal communities in Canada, it was a 500 year-
old way-of-life. 
118. It was the Canadian delegation's understanding that the European Commission was planning 
to examine all available information and take  necessary measures to ascertain the use of humane 
hunting standards.  In its efforts to conduct a humane, conservation-based, well-regulated hunt, the 
Government of Canada had facilitate d independent studies of the hunt and gathered information itself. 
Canadian officials were prepared to work w ith the European Commission in this upcoming 
examination.  
119. The representative of Canada encouraged the Eu ropean Commission to take stronger steps to 
discourage member States from proceeding with bans on importation of seal products until the European Commission's examination of humane hunti ng standards was completed and fully analysed.  
His delegation reserved its right to take any appropriate action necessary to defend this case under the TBT Agreement and other re levant WTO Agreements. 
120. The representative of Norway
 considered the measures to ban imports of seal products by 
Belgium and the plans to impose measures by sever al other EU member States, including specific 
plans in the Netherlands and Germany, to be inc onsistent with these Members' obligations under the 
WTO TBT Agreement and the GATT.  Norway, lik e Canada, was also strongly concerned by 
declarations made by the European Union and the European Parliament calling on legislation to ban 
trade in seal products across the board in the Co mmunity.  His delegation would review any such 
legislation with regard to its WTO consistency. 
121. Norway could not see how and to what extent the appropriate assessments regarding available 
scientific and technical evidence had been made, nor how the requirement that barriers to trade should 
not be no more restrictive than necessary as stated in Article 2.2 had been fulfilled.  Furthermore, 
arguments invoking the "protection of public mora lity" and "reasons of public opinion and animal 
suffering" when prohibiting imports  of products from hooded seals and harp seals were regarded as 
difficult to reconcile with the requirements of the TBT Agreement. 
122. The representative of Norway stressed that his delegation was of the opinion that 
GATT Article XX could not be applied to justify rest rictions on trade in seal products.  A ban on the 
importation of seal products would set a dangerous pr ecedent for trade in animal products that were 
harvested in a sustainable and humane manner.  He  recalled the information provided to Belgian and 
Dutch authorities, as well as to the European Comm unities, to the effect that Norwegian seal hunting 
was strictly regulated and had proven to  be both sustainable and humane.   
123. The representative of Norway further noted th at the European Commission had given the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) the task to review the methods used in the seal hunt and that 
the EFSA had established a working group and cont acted all the national scientific committees, 
including the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (NSCFS).   
124. The NSCFS attached great importance to contri buting to the work on the seal issues and 
qualified Norwegian experts in this field had been  selected for this purpose.  The focus of the  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Norwegian study would be on killing methods used in the seal hunt.  The representative of Norway 
explained that once the Norwegian report had been forwarded to the EFSA, Norway would invite the 
EFSA working group to Oslo to present the Norweg ian results.  His delegation was not informed of 
other scientific committees that had undertaken work related to this specific task and was confident 
that the EFSA would have the best information available before submitting their report to the 
Commission by 15 December 2007.  
125. Finally, the representative of Norway stressed  that seal quotas were set on the basis of 
scientific advice and that of seal population w as well within the boundaries of sustainable 
management.  In fact, the seal populations were not endangered and theref ore not listed under the 
Convention on International Trad e in Endangered Species (CITES).  Additionally, the humane 
harvesting methods used in Norwegian seal hunting compared favourably to those used on domestic 
livestock.  He encouraged the Eu ropean Commission to take str onger steps to discourage member 
States from proceeding with bans on the importation of seal products while this assessment was being 
conducted.  Norway continued to reserve its right  to take any appropriate action necessary to defend 
this case under the TBT Agreement and other relevant WTO Agreements.  
126. The representative of the European Communities  noted that the Belgian Decree had entered 
into force in April 2007, while the Dutch Governme nt was still in the process of finalizing the 
regulation.  She confirmed that the European Commiss ion would be carrying out an analysis of all the 
existing scientific information relating to the animal  welfare aspects of seal hunting and that part of 
the assessment would be conducted by the European  Food Safety Authority (EFSA).  The EFSA had 
started its work under the mandate requested by th e Commission to issue a scientific opinion on the 
killing and skinning of seals.  It was EFSA's ai m to deliver the best science by drawing on 
independent scientific experts worldwide.  The Commission had underlined  to EFSA the importance 
of involving scientists from countries where the seali ng took place. It was expected that EFSA would 
issue its opinion by the end of the year. 
127. The representative of the European Commun ities concluded by reassuring Canada and 
Norway that the Commission was giving careful cons ideration to the concerns voiced in the TBT 
Committee.  She pointed out that no decision had yet been taken with regard to the Belgian and Dutch 
measures and that the Commission would examine them in the light of the conclusions drawn from the scientific opinion and the study. 
(xiv) Saudi Arabia – International Conformity Certification Programme (ICCP) 
128. The representative of Japan
, supported by the United States , expressed his delegation's 
continued concerns regarding the above measure.   Although a questionnaire had been sent to the 
authorities in Saudi Arabia on the issue, no reply had been received. 
(xv) India - Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles (G/TBT/N/IND/20) 
129. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that at the March meeting of the 
TBT Committee, the Indian delegation had confirmed th at the tyre regulation had entered into force.  
However his delegation's understanding was that the standard and the certification were still voluntary 
and he sought an update on the state of play of the implementation of this regul ation.  His delegation's 
request was again that India should follow the work in the UNECE Committee on tyres regulations 
and in the meantime refrain from adopti ng a mandatory national standard.   
130. The representative of the European Communities further recalled that India had referred to 
specific road and climate conditions as the reason fo r not accepting tyres which, by means of the so-
called "e-mark", were already certified as being saf e and suitable for use in conformity with the 
relevant UNECE regulations.  It was his view that in the absence of technical or scientific evidence, G/TBT/M/42 
Page 22  
 
  specific road and climate conditions in India c ould not justify the requirement of the special 
certification scheme that India intended to implemen t.  Several countries which were signatory parties 
to the UNECE Agreement of 1958 as well as others  not signatories, had severe climate and road 
conditions and accepted the "e-mark" tyres.  Th e European Communities believed that the Indian 
certification of tyres according to the national standards would be more trade-restrictive than 
necessary;  moreover, due to the different licen ce fees for domestic and im ported products, it would 
also be discriminatory. 
131. The representative of the United States
 associated his delegation with many of the comments 
made, in particular on the need for India to pa rticipate in UNECE discussions on global technical 
regulations for tyres. 
132. The representative of India  recalled that the European Communities had submitted comments 
and questions in writing and informed the Committee that a reply had been provided.  Regarding the 
UNECE regulation for pneumatic tyres, he noted that India was not a signatory to the 1958 UNECE Agreement.  He stressed that the regulation did not involve duplicative marking requirements and 
that, more generally, the requirements in Indian st andards were specified by the relevant technical 
committees after involving all stakeholders such  as manufacturers, testing centres, research 
organisations, regulatory authorities and consumer organisations.  The tropical conditions prevailing 
in the country, as well as the financial implications  in implementing the restricted testing conditions 
were also kept in mind when ela borating the relevant provisions.   
133. The representative of India noted that the standa rds were dynamic in nature and that they 
might be reviewed after more data was generate d.  The input from the European Communities would 
be welcome to bridge the gaps between the India and UNECE regulations.  Finally, he clarified that 
the provision of the measure applied both to impor ted and domestically produced products and that 
the regulation was still under consideration and had not yet entered into force. 
(xvi) China –  Domestic Gas Cooking Appliances (G/TBT/N/CHN/237) 
134. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that the response received from China 
to the concerns it had raised previously with respect to the proposed amendment of the national 
standard for gas cooking appliances had not been fully  satisfactory.  The expert opinion obtained by 
the European Communities w as that the requirement for a minimum input of burners at 3.5kilowatt 
and that the burners' material should have a mini mum temperature resistance of 700 degrees Celsius 
were more burdensome than necessary and, moreov er, were not justifiable legitimate objectives as 
required under the TBT Agreement.  The Chinese aut horities in their initial reply had justified their 
minimum input requirement as necessary in order to  meet market demand since the Chinese cooking 
method required high thermal power in the short term .  However, upon further analysis of the Chinese 
market and the minimum temperature requirement, th e expert opinion remained that neither technical 
requirement was justifiable within the meaning of  Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement and that if 
adopted, it would constitute an unjustified barrier to trade.  
135. The representative of China  responded that in his delegation's opinion the technical 
requirements were reasonable, given the Chinese method of cooking.  Nevertheless, experts from 
China and the European Communities should discuss the technical issues with a view to resolving the 
matter and he was confident that this  could be accomplished bilaterally.  
(xvii)  Uruguay –Enrichment of Wheat Flour and Foods Prepared with Wheat Flour 
(G/TBT/N/URY/2) 
136. The representative of the European Communities  reiterated her delegation's concerns 
regarding the Uruguayan Decree on the enrichment of wheat flour with iron and folic acid.  Although  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 23 
 
 
  the Uruguay Ministry of Public Health had ordered that wheat flour used as an ingredient in food 
additives was exempted from enrichment, there were  a number of products for which exemption had 
been requested but in respect of which a decision had not yet been made.  The European Communities 
was interested in knowing when the list of pre- processed foods that would be exempted from the 
enrichment requirement would be adopted and which categories of products it would cover.  She 
pointed out that measures should not be more trade-restrictive than necessary. 
137. The representative of Uruguay  took note of the concerns.  
C. EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCES  
1. Good Regulatory Practice 
(i) March 2008 Workshop on Good Regulatory Practice 
138. The Chairman  recalled that the Fourth Triennial Review set out recommendations for future 
work with a view to deepening Members' understa nding of the contribution good regulatory practice 
could make to the implementation of the TBT Agr eement.  Pursuant to these recommendations it was 
agreed that the Committee would hold a workshop on the topic of good regulatory practice in March 2008.
18  He drew the Committee's attention to a draft programme circulated in document 
JOB(07)/107.  
139. The representative of Brazil  stressed the need for debate and discussion at the end of each 
Panel session.   
140. The representative of Canada  proposed Mr. Scott Jacobs, formerly of the OECD and an 
expert on regulatory reform, as a speaker in Panel Session 3 on Regulatory Impact Assessments 
(RIAs).    
141. The representative of the European Communities  emphasized the importance of 
simplification of existing regulations which the European Communities intended to address in its 
presentation under Session 1.    
142. The representative of the United States  informed the Committee that the US speaker on the 
topic of "Transparency and Consu ltative Mechanisms" (Session 2) would be an official from the US 
Office of Management and Budget.  The United States intended also to make a presentation jointly 
with the European Communities on Regulatory Cooperation (Session 4). 
143. The representative of El Salvador  enquired whether funding would be provided for the 
participation of capital based officials from developing countries.   
(ii) Fourth Triennial Review Recommendations   
144. The Chairman  recalled that the in the Fourth Triennial Review the Committee had agreed on 
seven recommendations contained in paragraph 19  of document G/TBT/19 on good regulatory 
practice.  He invited Members to sh are their experiences in this regard. 
145. The representative of Canada  introduced a submission (G/TBT/2/Add.6/Rev.2) on the 
implementation of a new Cabinet Directive on Stre amlining Regulation.  The Directive, which had 
entered into force on 1 April 2007, introduced a more comprehensive management approach to 
Canada's regulatory process with specific requi rements for the development, implementation, 
                                                      
18 The Committee's Future Work on good regulatory practice is set out in G/TBT/19, paras 19-20. G/TBT/M/42 
Page 24  
 
  evaluation and review of regulati ons.  Moreover, it took into account many internationally recognized 
principles of Good Regulatory Practice.  A key diffe rence between the new Directive and the previous 
regulatory policy was that it took a life-cycle approach to regulating:  not only did the directive apply to the development of regulations but it also applied to their implementation as well as their 
evaluation and review (Figure 1).    
Figure 1:  The Lifecycle Approach 
Consulting, Coordinating, 
Cooperating
Planning for
Implementation 
& ComplianceMeasuring & 
Reporting on 
PerformanceEvaluating & 
Reviewing 
RegulationSetting 
Objectives and 
Expected
ResultsIdentifying & 
Assessing 
Public Policy 
IssuesSelecting, 
Designing & 
Assessing 
Regulatory 
Responses
Analyzing 
Impacts & 
Ensuring 
Benefits 
Justify Costs
 
146. The new Directive required Canadian re gulatory departments and agencies to, inter alia :  (a) 
determine whether it was necessary to regulate;  (b ) assess the costs and benefits of regulatory and 
non-regulatory measures, including government inacti on;  (c) undertake consultation with interested 
and affected parties in order to promote transparen cy and openness;  (d) identify the rationale for their 
approach;  (e) use available international sta ndards, guidelines and recommendations; (f) specify, 
particularly for technical regulations, regulatory requ irements in terms of performance characteristics; 
and (g) take advantage of opport unities for cooperation, either bila terally or multilaterally.  It was 
emphasized that the elements of the new Directive corresponded directly with many of the aspects of 
good regulatory practice that had been identified in  the TBT Committee's Fourth Triennial Review.  
The Directive had the effect of incorporating good regulatory practices and principles into Canada's 
domestic regulatory policy to achieve a more eff ective, efficient and accountable regulatory system 
that promoted the public interest.19 
147. The representative of Colombia  informed the Committee that  Colombia was adopting a 
similar approach in addressing good regulatory practi ce by first ascertaining if there was a need for 
regulation and then assessing the extent of regulati on necessary through analysis and assessment.  The 
value of international cooperation in this area was stressed. 
148. The representative of the European Communities  noted that the EC approach addressed the 
same points discussed in the Canadian presentations, but in a slightly different way.  He asked Canada 
                                                      
19 Additional information on the Directive could be  found at website address www.regulation.gc.ca .  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 25 
 
 
  to clarify how Canada proposed to monitor that a regulation was meeting its original policy 
objectives.  
149. In response to the EC question, the representative of Canada  noted that his authorities were 
developing a guidance document on the subject of monitoring;  at this stage it would appear that periodic reviews would be carried out at regular intervals with stakeholder and industry input.  Once 
the guidance document was available, Canada woul d make it available to the Committee and possibly 
present their experiences of the review process. 
150. The Chairman
 thanked the representative from Canada and encouraged other Members to 
come forward with submissions. 
2. Conformity Assessment Procedures 
151. The Chairman  recalled that the Fourth Triennial Review set out three areas for continued 
sharing of experiences with a view to furtheri ng Members' understanding of the implementation of 
Articles 5 to 9 of the TBT Agreement.20  At the previous meeting, Japan had introduced a paper on 
behalf of APEC members entitled "Case Study to Clarify Effectiveness of MRA's", contained in 
document G/TBT/W/276.  
152. The representative of Japan  presented a paper on Japan's experience with "Cross-border 
Designation Systems" (G/TBT/W/277) which expanded on their previous submission to the TBT Committee (G/TBT/W/276).
21  It was explained inter alia  how, in addition to various Mutual 
Recognition Agreements (MRAs), Japan had, si nce 1986, implemented a unilateral Cross-border 
Designation System which through its recognitio n of conformity-assessment-bodies in foreign 
countries, provided recognised certification of produc ts imported into Japan and therefore resulted in 
a de facto MRA.  As  an  example  of  the e ffectiveness of the Cross-border Designation System, the 
representative of  Japan cited Japan's Electrical A ppliances and Material Safety Law which recognised 
certifications by foreign conformity assessment bodies and therefore provided overseas companies with the opportunity to obtain certification in th eir own countries prior to exporting to Japan. This 
certification was then recognised in Japan. 
153. The Chairman
 encouraged other Members to come forward with contributions or statements 
regarding their experiences on conformity assessment  procedures in response to the recommendations 
contained in the Fourth Triennial Review. 
3. Transparency 
(i) Fourth Triennial Review Follow-up  
154. The Chairman  noted that the Fourth Triennial Review contained a wide range of specific and 
technical recommendations, some of which c ould require further action by the Committee.22  There 
had been a short but useful discussion on how to move forward on the implementation of some specific recommendations at the meeting in March. Members were reminded that there had been some discussion on the feasibility of attaching texts of dr aft regulations to the notifications, as well as the 
usefulness of websites and the sharing of translations.
23 
 
                                                      
20 G/TBT/19, para 46. 
21 Other relevant document by Japan include:  G/TBT/W/194 and W/263. 
22 G/TBT/19, para 68. 
23 G/TBT/M/41, paras 100-106.  Documents G/TBT/GEN/39 and 40 are relevant.  G/TBT/M/42 
Page 26  
 
  (a) Translations 
155. The representative of Egypt
 noted that his delegation was still experiencing problems with the 
translation of regulations. He sought other Member s' experiences concerning the issue and stressed 
that it was important that Members followed the recommendation contained in document G/TBT/1/Rev.8 which states in Section 5:  "If a translation of the document is planned, this should be 
indicated.  If a translated summary is available, this too should be indicated".
24  This helped inform 
Members about the existence of a translation in one of the WTO of ficial languages from the notifying 
Member.  The representative of Egypt also suggest ed that when Members translated the technical 
regulations for their own use, there could be a mech anism – perhaps using the symbol of the original 
notification – enabling those Members to notify the TBT Committee of the availability of such 
translations.  On a separate issue, the representativ e from Egypt suggested that Members indicate the 
affected parties (those affected by the regulation that would enter into force) on their notification;  this 
would save time and resources researching the notification.  
156. The representative of Brazil  reminded Members that his delegation had suggested in the 
previous meeting that Members notify in an addendum to the original notification that translations of 
notified regulations were available.  
157. The representative of Colombia  suggested that the Committee to  use a similar mechanism to 
that employed by the SPS Committee:  the use of a notification that indicated the availability of a non-
official translation by the notifying Member.25    
158. The Chairman  encouraged other Members to come forw ard with contributions or suggestions 
regarding the recommendations on transparency contained in the Fourth Triennial Review. 
(ii) Fifth Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange 
159. The Chairman  recalled that the Committee would hold its Fifth Special Meeting on 
Procedures for Information Exchange on 7-8 Novemb er 2007, back-to-back with the regular meeting 
of the TBT Committee on 9 November.  This m eeting would be an opportunity for persons 
responsible for information exchange, including  persons responsible fo r enquiry points and 
notifications, to exchange information on the impl ementation of the transpar ency disciplines in the 
TBT Agreement as well as the recommendations em anating from the Committee's work to date.  
Provision had been made in the WTO's 2007 Technical Assistance and Training Plan to support the participation of capital-based o fficials from developing country.
26  He referred to a draft programme 
circulated by the Secretariat before the meeting (JOB(07)/108). 
160. The representative of Egypt  suggested that the Secretariat include an item on Members' 
experience of Export Alert mechanisms under Session 3 (Use of Electronic Tools), in particular, he 
was interested in how such mech anisms worked for developing country Members and what role the 
private sector played in such mech anisms. He also suggested that th e International Trade Centre (ITC) 
could explain (in Session 4 on Technical Cooperation and the work of Enquir y Points) the assistance 
it provided to Members' Enquiry Points. 
161. The representative of Brazil  supported Egypt's statement in respect of Export Alert 
mechanisms and proposed that INMETRO (Brazil's national institute of Metrology, Standardization 
and Industrial Quality) could make a presentation on the subject.27  The same agency could also make 
                                                      
24 G/TBT/1/Rev.8, p.12. 
25 See "Unofficial Translations" (G/SPS/GEN/487) and G/SPS/36, para. 32. 
26 WT/COMTD/W/151, p.55. 
27 http://www.inmetro.gov.br/english/.  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 27 
 
 
  a presentation under Session 4 to discuss Brazil's experience of technical cooperation with 
MERCOSUR countries and with Mozambique.  
162. The representative of the European Communities  reminded Members of the Secretariat's 
document prepared for the Fourth Triennial Review  concerning the attachments to notifications as 
well as its presentation on the electronic tools available in the Secretariat (G/TBT/GEN/40).  He 
proposed that Session 3 include a presentation – eith er by a Member or by the Secretariat – on the 
possibilities open to the Co mmittee for the use of electronic management tools. 
163. The Chairman  thanked delegations for th eir comments and suggestions.28 
(iii) Workshop on Article 15.2 Statements 
164. The Secretariat  informed the Committee that  it intended to organize a half-day workshop on 
Article 15.2 Statements in the afte rnoon of 8 November.  It was noted  that this initiative, which would 
be open to all interested delegations, would be ai med at providing interested Members who had not 
yet submitted their Article 15.2 Statement with releva nt information.  The workshop would also be an 
opportunity for an exchange of information and e xperiences with other Members, including those who 
had submitted their statements.  
4. Technical Assistance 
165. The Chairman  recalled that in the Fourth Triennial Review there were three recommendations 
on technical assistance.  The first two dealt with the notification format (G/TBT/16) and the third one was about the delivery and receipt of technical assistance.
29    
(i) Notification format (G/TBT/16) 
166. The Chairman  recalled that Members had had a short discussion on the format at the previous 
meeting30 and proposed three options for discussion in the light of the foregoing: (a) that the 
Committee continue using the format without cha nging it (noting that the format is a voluntary 
mechanism and if Members wished to use it, it rema ined at their disposal and that, moreover, the 
Fourth Triennial Review encouraged Members to ma ke use of it);  (b) that the Committee modify the 
format, with the objective of making it more user-fri endly; or, (c) that the Committee explore other 
approaches to fulfil the objective of increasing th e flow of information (and transparency) on 
technical assistance. 
167. The representative of th e European Communities  suggested that in order to choose one of the 
options on the way forward, it was important th at the Committee obtain the views of developing 
countries as to why the format had not been used.  He pointed out that from the point of view of a developed country who offered technical assistance, the format itself did not fit into existing 
procedures that governed the way in which tec hnical assistance programmes were developed and 
executed.  It was of little use other th an, perhaps, for information purposes.  
168. The representative of Egypt
 stressed the importance of resolving this issue as technical 
assistance was an important aspect to implementing th e TBT Agreement.   He noted that the format 
was one step in the process of assessing the e ffectiveness of technical assistance under the TBT 
Agreement.  He asked other Members what the r esponse had been to the notifications submitted by 
                                                      
28 Subsequent to the meeting, a revised draft programme taking into account comments and suggestions 
made was circulated on 19 July 2007;  it is contained in document JOB(07)/108/Rev.1. 
29 G/TBT/19, para. 78. 
30 G/TBT/M/41, paras 109-113. G/TBT/M/42 
Page 28  
 
  the three Members that had actually used the format.
31  He agreed with the European Communities 
that to establish the effectiveness of the technical assistance process and in order to decide on a way 
forward, it would have to be determined why the form at was not being used.  With respect to the point 
mentioned by both the European Communities and th e United States on a previous occasion that the 
format did not marry well with their respective in ternal processes, it was important that these two 
Members supply feedback and comments on what  their respective requirements were when 
processing applications for technical assistance.    
169. The representative of Brazil  shared the views expressed by the representative of Egypt and 
stressed the importance of ensuring that the syst em of technical assistance be demand-driven and 
asked the European Communities to provide more specific comments on the aspects of the format that 
were inadequate for their internal proce dures in the granting of technical assistance. 
170. The representative of the European Communities  explained that it was not so much a problem 
with the form of the format itself, but rather w ith its relevance at the time that a partnership was 
entered into between the European Communities and a recipient country when a decision to provide 
technical assistance was taken.  In the European  Communities, the provision of technical assistance 
and the priorities for such assistance were normally ag reed at a high level and then filtered down;  any 
information contained in the format might be useful , but this depended on the timing.  Some of the 
agreements to provide technical assistan ce spanned a period of five years.  
171. The representative of the United States  informed the Committee that his delegation had 
difficulty in providing comprehensive information on US assistance activities under the TBT Agreement as the information was not collected centrally .  He concurred with othe rs before him that it 
was important to ascertain from Members why the form was not being used.  
172. The Chairman
 stressed that the Committee as a whole attached importance to the issue of 
technical assistance and the fact that the format wa s not being used or any inadequacies of it, would 
need to be addressed.  He stressed  the importance of developing c ountries providing feedback on their 
experiences and their difficulties so th at the Committee could revisit the issue at the next meeting in a 
more comprehensive and focussed manner.   
(ii) Good practices in respect of the delivery and receipt of technical assistance 
173. The Chairman  referred to the recommendation contai ned in G/TBT/19, paragraph 78(c) on 
good practices in the delivery and receipt of technical  assistance.  He noted that the submissions of 
experiences by Members on this matter might enable  the Committee to discuss more thoroughly ideas 
on how to make the delivery of technical assistance more effective.     
174. The representative of Canada  informed the Committee that th e Standards Council of Canada 
was currently working with Costa Rica on three of nine projects made possible by the Canada-Costa 
Rica Competitiveness Development Fund.32  It was noted that the fund provided financial support for 
projects that would improve the business and trade environment in Costa Rica by strengthening the public sector.  The three projects were undertaken by  the Standards Council of Canada with support of 
the Canadian International Development Agency (CI DA) in partnership with Costa Rican agencies to 
enhance the development of a national quality infrast ructure in Costa Rica. The three projects dealt 
with the subject matter of good regulatory practice,  standards development and information services 
                                                     
 
31 G/TBT/TA-1/JAM (Jamaica), G/TBT/TA-2/ARM (A rmenia) and G/TBT/TA-3/CRI (Costa Rica). 
32 http://www.acdi-cida .gc.ca/costarica-e.  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 29 
 
 
  and conformity assessment.  A brief paper on Canada and Costa Rica's experiences on these technical 
assistance projects would be prepared for the next meeting of the Committee.33  
5. Special and Differential Treatment 
175. The Chairman  noted that the Fourth Triennial Revi ew encouraged Members to inform the 
Committee of special and differential treatment provided to developing country Members, and also 
encouraged developing country Members to unde rtake their own assessme nts of the utility and 
benefits of such special and differential treatment.34  The Chairman stressed that for a more focussed 
exchange of information on special and differentia l treatment on TBT issues, there was a need for 
specific contributions from Members.  
D. OTHER MATTERS  
(i) China - Intellectual Property Issues in Standardization 
176. The representative of China  referred Members to copies of a draft Chinese proposal for a TBT 
Committee decision on guidelines for intellectual prope rty rights issues concerning the preparation, 
adoption and application of standa rds referred to in Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement 
(provided as a Room Document).  The representativ e of China asked Members to review the paper 
and provide comments thereon to the Chinese delegation. 
(ii) Paraguay – Market access problems and technical assistance 
177. The representative of Paraguay , referring to his delegation's 15.2 Statement 
(G/TBT/2/Add.91), noted that his authorities had an alyzed the impacts of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) 
on Paraguay's trade.  The results were discourag ing in respect of agricultural exports and non-
agricultural exports.  In particular, Paraguay e xperienced market access problems due to both SPS and 
TBT measures affecting a substantial part of their tr ade due to its landlocked status and the need to 
transport their products through neighbouring countr ies.  Additional requirements imposed on exports 
were often unpredictable and without any scientific b asis, and, as a result, it was difficult to benefit 
from opportunities in international trade on an equal a nd fair basis.  These problems arose both with 
developing and developed country trad ing partners, including regional ones. 
178. The representative of Paraguay emphasized the importance of technical assistance to 
Paraguay for the implementation of the disciplines es tablished in the Uruguay R ound.  He noted that a 
cooperation project with the European Union had enabled Paraguay to develop institutional and 
professional capacities on various topics including  the application of both the TBT and SPS 
Agreements.  He also mentioned the cooperation le nt by Chile and Argentina with respect to TBT 
training courses and the satisfaction of the Paraguay delegation at the workshop on Technical Barriers 
to Trade held in May 2007 which had been ma de possible with the cooperation of the WTO 
Secretariat, the Codex Alimentarius Commission and th e European Union.   It was important to refine 
and perfect these support mechanisms to small ec onomies and to provide special and differential 
treatment for developing and least-developed countries in  such a way so as to ensure that the costs 
related to the implementation of the Agreement we re accessible and enabled these countries to take an 
active part in the multilateral trading system. 
                                                      
33 It was noted that this technical assistance project had been initiated before Costa Rica had made its 
notification contained in G/TBT/TA-3/CRI . 
34 G/TBT/19, para. 82. G/TBT/M/42 
Page 30  
 
  (iii) Colombia - Equivalence of technical regulations 
179. The representative of Colombia
 raised the issue of the equivalence of technical regulations  
under Article 2.7 of the Agreement for discussion in the Committee. The Colombian delegation was 
interested in discussing the criteria used to determine equivalence. 
III. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION ACTIVITIES 
180. Information on the Secretariat 's technical assistance activities in 2007 is available as 
document G/TBT/GEN/56. 
IV. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS 
181. The representatives of the ITC  (G/TBT/GEN/57), Codex (G/T BT/GEN/53 and 54) and the 
IEC (G/TBT/GEN/55) updated the Committee on rele vant activities they were undertaking.  The 
representative from UNIDO  updated the Committee with respect to its activities, latest projects and 
donor contributions and referred to  a manual it was developing jointly with ISO on how to set-up a 
standards body in developing countries, as well as training material for ISO 22000. 
182. The representative of Canada  referred to the UNECE Working Party on Regulatory 
Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) wh ich would be holding its  Annual Standardization 
Week in Geneva on 5-7 November 2007.  Canada  wished to draw Members attention to the 
International Seminar on Product Sa fety and Counterfeiting and recalle d that Canada had submitted a 
paper on this subject in 2006 (G/TBT/W/265/Rev.1) regarding concerns related to the counterfeiting 
of certification marks affixed to goods where there existed a health and/or safety concern.35 
V. OTHER BUSINESS 
(i) Observer status 
183. The Chairman  informed the Committee that an app lication for observer status to the 
TBT Committee (also made to the SPS Committee)  had been received from the Gulf Standards 
Organization (GSO). 
(ii) Private Standards 
184. The representative of Egypt , supported by Kenya  and Chile , requested that the issue of 
"Private Standards" be included on the agenda for the next meeting. 
185. The representative of Brazil  was of the view that the issue of private standards should not be 
addressed by the TBT Committee;  Members in the TBT Committee needed to confine its discussions 
to standards and regulations that affected go vernments, not necessarily the private sector.  
186. The representative of th e European Communities  drew the Committee's attention to the fact 
that the issue of private standards was being di scussed in the SPS Committee.  His delegation's initial 
view was similar to that of the representative of Br azil:  private standards could not be considered as 
standards within the meaning of the TBT Agreem ent as these were not developed in an open, 
transparent and impartial fashion following the reco mmendations for international standards set out in 
the TBT Committee's Second Triennial Review.36  In fact, private standards could perhaps more easily 
                                                      
35 More information is availabl e at: http://www.unece.or g/trade/wp6/document s/wp6-07-list.htm. 
36 G/TBT/9, Annex 4.  G/TBT/M/42 
 Page 31 
 
 
  be characterized as technical specifications set  up for business-to-business activities and it was 
doubtful that as such they could be considered to fall under the scope of the TBT Agreement. 
187. The representative of Egypt noted that Article 1.3 of the TBT Agreement stated that all 
products, including industrial and agri cultural products were subject to the Agreement and that private 
standards affected trade such in products.  Furt hermore, issues of certification, standards and 
regulations were covered in the TBT Agreemen t and discussed in the TBT Committee.  It was 
therefore the view of the Egyptian delegation that the Committee should discuss the scope of the Agreement and whether it applied to private standards or not.   
VI. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 
188. The next regular meeting of the Committee will take place on 9 November, back-to-back with 
the Special Meeting on Procedures for Informati on Exchange to be held on 7-8 November.  
__________