WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/TBT/W/354 
12 June 2012 
 (12-3105) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
 
SIXTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE TBT AGREEMENT:   
TRANSPARENCY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT 
 
Submission by the European Union 
 
The following communication, dated 12 June 2012,  is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the European Union. 
 
_______________ 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Transparency in the TBT notification procedure is an important aspect in the operation and 
implementation of the TBT Agreement and has been subject to various recommendations and 
decisions of the TBT Committee. 
2. The EU would like to take the opportunity of the Sixth Triennial Review of the TBT 
Agreement to contribute through this Communicat ion to discussions between Members on further 
improvements that can be achieved on transparency in the future. 
3. In this respect, the EU will first present its ob servations on the practical functioning of the 
TBT notification procedure and then outline its ide as for future improvements, notably through an 
improved WTO based IT system. 
II. THE EU'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE RESPECT OF THE NOTIFICATION 
OBLIGATIONS AND ON THE IMP LEMENTATION OF EXISTING 
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TBT COMMITTEE AS REGARDS TRANSPARENCY 
4. The notification procedure under the TBT Agreem ent has certainly become more important 
and effective in recent years. Looking at the fi gures, the number of TBT notifications has been 
growing exponentially. Whereas less than 400 draft texts had been notified in 1995, the year of the 
entry into force of the TBT Agreemen t, this number has more than trip led in the last years to attain a 
peak of 1491 notifications in 2009. Equally, the numb er of specific trade concerns discussed in the 
TBT Committee exploded in recent years. 
5. One of the reasons for these increases is the fact that more and more WTO Members are 
notifying and are participating actively in the pro cedure. However, it can be observed that there are 
still many weaknesses in the procedure. On the occas ion of the Fifth Triennial Review, the European 
Union
1 had submitted an overview of its observations  on the functioning of the TBT notification 
procedure and what efforts the EU had made in orde r to give full effect to the relevant Committee's 
recommendations, modifying its internal practices where necessary with the aim of improving 
                                                      
1 At that time, "the European Communities". G/TBT/W/354 
Page 2  
 
  transparency in the notification procedure
2. Many of those observations are still valid: in particular, 
certain Members do not notify on a regular basis their technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures, or do not notify them at a draft stage. In the same vein, certain Members' 
Enquiry Points systematically do not answer any of the enquiries or comments received on individual notifications. This non-respect of  the basic obligations seriously hampers the effectiveness of the 
procedure.  
6. The TBT Committee has, through its successive Triennial Reviews, made many valuable 
recommendations which, when followed by WTO Members, significantly improve the 
implementation of the notification procedure. Ex amples are: allowance of a 60 to 90 day comment 
period, replies to be given in one of the three offi cial languages of the WTO, direct accessibility of the 
notified text through a link in the notification form at, sharing of unofficial translations, reply in 
writing to written comments, communication of adopted and published texts etc. 
7. Not all Members follow, however, the agreed recommendations. Unfortunately, even simple, 
but important recommendations like the direct accessibility of texts or the communication of adopted texts are not always complied with. 
8. The EU is also more and more often confront ed in bilateral talks with the request that 
notifications should be sent bilaterally by email to  other WTO Members, while this task is normally 
ensured by the WTO Secretariat (in accordance with  Article 10.6 of the TBT Agreement). The reason 
for these requests seems to be that it often takes several days, occasionally mu ch longer, before the 
Secretariat circulates a notification following its receipt. 
9. The EU would also like to draw attention to  the fact that not all WTO Members use the 
possibility to comment on notified draft technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures. 
This seems to be due, inter alia , to the Members' difficulties in coping with the increasing amount of 
notifications and related informa tion transmitted through the Secretariat or the WTO IT system. For 
example, the EU has observed that many Members do  not take note of additional information that the 
EU transmits following an original notification (such as information about modifications introduced 
by the legislators, communication of adopted texts, prolongation of certain measures etc.).  
10. The EU itself encounters (and this despite a well functioning IT database) challenges linked 
to the high number of notifications. Other difficulti es are linked to certain practices of Members in 
relation to the notification procedure. An illustrativ e example is the notification of a modification of 
an adopted text carried out through an addendum afte r the text of the original notification has been 
adopted. Since addenda are used for many other information purposes by WTO Members (such as 
additional information, communication of adopted text etc.), this practice does not permit an 
"automated" way of treating notifications, but requires that an officer in the national Enquiry Point receiving the notification open each and every addendum  to determine if it is about a new notification 
(with a respective comment period) or not. 
11. In view of the above, the EU invites the Committee to stress again, in line with the 
conclusions of the Fifth Triennial Review under S ection II, letter D, the importance of Members fully 
complying with the transparency obligations  of the TBT Agreement and the recommendations 
concerning their implementation adopted by the TBT Committee . 
                                                      
2 G/TBT/W/309  G/TBT/W/354 
 Page 3 
 
 
  III. THE WAY FORWARD: A COMMON, EFFI CIENT AND WELL-FUNCTIONING IT 
SYSTEM 
12. The EU believes that a decisive step forward with regard to enhanced effectiveness and 
transparency of the notification procedure would be to create a common, efficient and well-
functioning WTO-based IT system  that would give Members a common basis for available 
information and information exchange and w ould bring considerable improvements for the 
implementation of the notification procedur e, including the existing obligations and 
recommendations. 
13. It would help at a moment when some Members have already created their own TBT 
databases/websites, but are still in the process of deve loping them further, while others are about to 
develop their own IT systems. It would mean that many Members would not need to invest resources 
in the development of national, specific IT systems and would be of great benefit for those Members' 
which do not have the capacity to do so. 
14. Based on the experience that the EU gained w ith the development of its own TBT database3 
(which is used by many other WTO Members) and with the development of the database for the EU's 
internal notification procedure4, which presents many similarities with the TBT notification 
procedure, the EU would like to submit in this pape r some concrete proposals for consideration by the 
Committee about the functionalities that a common database should have. 
A. POSSIBILITY FOR MEMBERS TO SUBMIT THE NOT IFICATION ONLINE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE 
TIME BETWEEN THE SENDING OF THE NOTIF ICATION TO THE SECRETARIAT AND ITS 
CIRCULATION TO MEMBERS  
15. The TBT Committee has agreed that the reasonabl e time that Members are obliged to allow to 
other Members for comments according to Articles 2. 9.4 and 5.6.4 of the TBT Agreement should be 
at least 60 days. This is a relatively short time peri od to react to often complex notifications, which 
frequently require translation of the notified dr aft legislation in order to be properly assessed. 
16. It is therefore of utmost importance for the resp ect and efficiency of the procedure that once a 
Member has carried out its notification, the notification is circulated promptly to other Members. 
Such a prompt circulation would also avoid the still unresolved question (as discussed at the occasion 
of the Fifth Triennial Review) whether the 60-day co mment period starts with the notification by the 
notifying Member to the WTO Secretariat or with th e circulation by the Secretariat to other Members. 
The EU would therefore be in favour of a system that allows the WTO Secretariat to circulate the 
received notifications promptly. 
17. The EU is aware that the SPS Notification Submission System ("SPS NSS"), as presented to 
the TBT Committee at its meeting of March 2011 alr eady allows for electronic notification by those 
Members wishing to use this facility. The EU would be  in favour of the use of such a system for TBT 
notifications. The EU has, however, observed one disadvantage with the SPS NSS. The electronic 
notification is carried out through a Word document to be filled in on-line and it is therefore not 
possible to upload an already filled out notification form. In the EU the filling in of the notification 
forms is, like in many other WTO Members, done by the services responsible for developing 
legislation (and having at their disposal the detaile d information that the notification form requires) 
and by the EU TBT Notification and Enquiry Point.  The EU would therefore favour a system that 
would permit the filling in of the form by differe nt actors and the direct uploading of the form, and 
would not oblige the Notification Authority to copy and paste all information in another online format 
                                                      
3 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tbt/ 
4 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/ G/TBT/W/354 
Page 4  
 
  in order to be able to actually submit the notifica tion to the WTO Secretariat. Such a "copy and paste" 
obligation does not only require add itional time and human resources, but is also an additional source 
for human errors that should be avoided. 
18. From its experience with the database for the in ternal EU notification procedure, the EU can 
report that it is possible to create an information system that easily allows electronic notification by 
Members using a PDF format document
5: Such a document can be easily transmitted and completed 
by WTO Members' national authorities (and thus re place the current Word document) and then be 
uploaded to an information system without the nece ssity for the Notification Authority to copy and 
paste the information in an online form.  
19. It could be envisaged that the notification submitted by a Member is either immediately 
circulated to the other Members without any inte rvention by the WTO Secretariat or that the WTO 
Secretariat would carry out a quick check, without , however, delaying the circulation of the 
notification more than one day. 
20. Electronic submission can remain optional and Members not wishing to use it can of course 
continue to transmit the notifications by email, fax etc. However, in this case, the given comment 
period should start as of the date of circulation of  the notification to Members by the WTO Secretariat 
and not as of the date of the simple transmission to the WTO Secretariat by the notifying Member. 
B. EFFICIENT ALERT SYSTEM THAT RENDERS PROCESSING BY MEMBERS EASIER  
21. In order to make such an electronic system useful to the other Members, the EU is of the 
opinion that an efficient alert system through which Members would receive the notifications should be put in place. 
22. In the light of the large number of notificati ons and information to be processed, it would be 
useful to "standardize" certain information provid ed by Members in order to enable automatic IT 
processing to the greatest possible extent, thereby avoiding that every Member has to manually 
process the incoming notifications and, theref ore, easing the work of the Enquiry Points. 
23. The first improvement could be to allow that  the IT system automatically extracts and 
indicates the final date for comments given by the notifying WTO Member. This could be achieved if 
all Members would indicate the exact final date fo r comments which the system could automatically 
extract out of the notification form. The indication of the final date for comments presupposes that the above-mentioned notification possibility works and that the notifications are circulated after a definite 
period of time (i.e. equal for all notifications) on ce they have been submitted by a Member. This 
would mean that Members do not need to check the notification forms individually and manually 
register the final date for comments, as is the case at the moment.  
24. The second major improvement which could be ach ieved is the indicati on of products covered 
by the notification (point 4 of the notification form ). At the moment, Members are invited to indicate 
either the Harmonized System – Codes (HS), the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature 
(CCCN) or the International Classification for Standards (ICS) numbers, where applicable. All these 
repertories have very detailed categories. This often makes it difficult to indicate the exact codes. For 
example, EU legislation usually c overs a wide range of products fa lling under different codes. This 
might also explain why only a few Members actually  indicate a specific c ode under point 4 of the 
notification form. Furthermore, such detailed i ndications make it very difficult to process the 
                                                      
5 PDF is a universal file format and free to use on any existing platform.  
More information on fillable forms: http://www.a dobe.com/products/acrobat pro/create-fillable-pdf-
forms.html  G/TBT/W/354 
 Page 5 
 
 
  information automatically. This is problematic for exam ple with regard to alert lists that many Members 
have created in order to dispat ch notifications to public author ities or to economic operators. 
25. The EU therefore proposes to create a common list of categories, that is precise enough to 
permit stakeholders to identify specific product ar eas, but on the other hand is large enough not to 
oblige the Notification Authority to identify in deta il the individual products covered by the notified 
text or to oblige alert list users to subscribe to a large number of different categories to receive 
notifications in one field. 
26. Members would need to choose one of the pre- defined categories. In consequence, the IT 
system could provide for an alert list/research system on which Members could choose to receive/see only notifications of a certain category. This w ould also allow Members to process notifications 
automatically without being obliged to manually open every notification and classify it according to 
often nationally defined categories. 
27. As an example and a basis for discussion the EU  would propose the following categorisation: 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS 
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 
TOBACCO 
FISHING 
ANIMALS 
CHEMICALS PESTICIDES AND PESTICIDES RESIDUES 
PHARMACEUTICALS 
MEDICAL DEVICES COSMETICS 
ROAD TRANSPORT (motor vehicles etc.) 
SEA TRANSPORT VESSELS (ships etc.) RAIL TRANSPORT (trains etc.) 
AIR TRANSPORT (aircrafts etc.) 
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 
RADIO & TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 
ENERGY PRODUCTS/SYSTEMS 
PETROLEUM MINING AND MINERALS 
METALS 
RUBBER 
WOOD AND PAPER 
WATER WASTE 
TEXTILES, LEATHER, FOOTWEAR AND FURNISHINGS 
DOMESTIC AND LEISURE EQUIPMENT PACKAGING MATERIAL 
ARMS 
MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS LABELLING (general - not related to a specific product category) 
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES (general - not related to a specific 
product category) 
 
28. It might be necessary to add other categories if too many notifications are received in the 
miscellaneous products category. G/TBT/W/354 
Page 6  
 
  C. I
NFORMATION PRESENTED IN A CLEAR AND ACCESSIBLE WAY  
29. The EU observes that, while a lot of information related to notified draft measures is currently 
communicated by Members, much of it following  recommendations of the TBT Committee, not all 
Members actually perceive this information. The EU regularly communicates interesting information 
through addenda to original notifications, such as substantial modifications introduced during the 
legislative procedure leading to the final a doption the notified text, the prolongation of the 
applicability of certain time-limited measures, the adoption and publication of final texts. 
30. The EU is of the opinion that it is important fo r users of the IT system to be able to easily 
access all information related to one notification, wh ich means that the notification form, the notified 
text, available translations, any additional info rmation communicated through corrigenda, addenda or 
revisions should be accessible on one page, without obliging the user to search in different categories. 
An example for such a presentation can be found on the EU's TBT website6. 
D. POSSIBILITY TO STORE COMMENTS MADE AND ANSWERS GIVEN ON INDIVIDUAL 
NOTIFICATIONS  
31. As the example of the EU's website shows, it would also be possible as a further step to up-
load in such an IT system a ll comments issued by Members on a specific notification and the written 
answers given by the notifying Member. This w ould effectively implement the recommendation of 
the Fifth Triennial Review that the "Committee continues to discuss ways to improve the effective 
implementation of the provisions of the TBT Agreemen t on handling of comments, including assessing 
the feasibility of utilizing the TBT Information Mana gement System (TBT IMS) as a platform where 
comments on notified measures, and replies thereto,  could be posted on a voluntary basis"7. 
32. It could also be discussed in this context whet her this information would only be available to 
Members (through a closed IT application that would only be accessible to Members) or also to the public. 
E. S
TREAMLINING THE USE OF DIFFE RENT NOTIFICATION FORMATS  
33. The improvement of the IT system and the necessity to provide information in a clear and 
accessible way (see under sub-section C above) could also lead to a discussion on how and under 
which format (addendum, corrigendum, revision) modifi cations or any other information relevant to 
notified measures should be communicated and theref ore how to best give effect to the relevant 
recommendation of the Fifth Triennial Review8.  
34. In this respect the EU would like to stress ag ain that in the light of the large amount of 
information to be processed it should be ensure d that communications th rough addenda, corrigenda 
and revisions do not need to be opened manually to determine if the addendum contains a new 
notification (see section II above). 
35. In the EU's view amendments to adopted tec hnical regulations or to rules on conformity 
assessment procedures should be notified in accordance with Article 1.6 of the TBT Agreement to the 
WTO by sending a new filled in notification form. In the notification form a reference to the 
previously made notification can be mentioned (i ncluding the mention of the document symbol).  
                                                      
6 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tbt/index.cfm?fu seaction=Search.viewDetail&Country_ID=EEC&num
=362&dspLang=EN&nextpage=1&basdatedeb=&basdatefin=&baspays=EEC&baspays2=&basnotifnum=362&
basnotifnum2=&bastypepays=ANY&baskeywords=&fromform=viewBasic 
7 G/TBT/26, para 42 (d) 
8 G/TBT/26 para 43 (c)  G/TBT/W/354 
 Page 7 
 
 
   
36. Addenda should only be used to ensure the follow-up of information about the original 
notification (i.e. prolongation of the applicabilit y of legislation, changes introduced during the 
legislative process (without reopening a new co mment period), adoption and publication). 
37. Revisions could be used if the notified draft text has been substantially amended in the 
adoption process and is being replaced by a new no tification, thereby re- opening an additional 
comment period for other Members. 
38. Corrigenda should be used to correct errors in the notification format. 
F. IMPROVED LINKS WITH MEMBERS ' WEBSITES AND DATABASES  
39. In recent years many WTO Members developed their own databases and/or websites to be 
able to manage the increasing number of notifications  and disseminate them at their national level, but 
also to spread information to stakeholders. One of the biggest challenges is to get the new WTO 
documents and notifications as soon as they are available in the WTO Information Management 
System.  
40. An improved IT system should let WTO Member s' databases easily and automatically get 
those documents via web services or any similar manner. Moreover, in view of an upcoming 
electronic notification system, Members should also be allowed to transfer and upload any information (i.e. new notification) from thei r own databases directly onto the IT system. 
41. More generally speaking, the IT system should provide an API
9 or a set of web services10 to 
let WTO Members' IT systems interact with the TBT database. 
42. In the light of these reflections, the EU suggests that the Committee should take the 
opportunity of the Sixth Triennial Review to di scuss the creation of a common IT system that would 
contribute to the effective implementation of th e notification obligations of the TBT Agreement and 
Members' concrete expectations for such a system. Th e Committee could also decide to dedicate the 
next special meeting on procedures for inform ation exchange to a discussion on these expectations 
and proposals.  
__________ 
 
                                                      
9   http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Application_p rogramming_interface 
10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service