WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
5 July 2012 
 (12-3608) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Dedicated Session 
  
 
 
NON-TARIFF MEASURES AND SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
 
Background Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 
I. SUMMARY 
1. This paper is intended as a background note to  inform discussion at the Committee on Trade 
and Development's Dedicated Session on Small, Vu lnerable Economies.  It is by no means an 
exhaustive analysis of this issue. 
2. The paper seeks to stimulate discussion on non-tariff measures (NTMs) as per the instructions 
given by Ministers during the WTO's Eighth Mini sterial Conference in December 2011.  Ministers 
then reaffirmed their commitment to the Work Programme on Small Economies and instructed the 
WTO Secretariat to provide relevant information and factual analysis for discussion among Members 
in the Committee on Trade and Development's (CTD ) Dedicated Session and on the identification and 
effects of NTMs on Small Economies.2  
3. The paper addresses NTMs and takes a preliminary look at the effect such measures have on 
the goods exports of small, vulnerable economies (SVEs).3  It also examines the level of SVE 
involvement with the two main WTO committees which deal with those NTMs of most importance to 
SVEs, mainly the NTMs affecting fish and agri cultural products as in the case of sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures or those dealing with technical barriers to trade.   
4. It has become increasingly evid ent that while progress has been  made regarding the reduction 
of tariffs on both agricultural and manufactured goods, the use of NTMs by WTO Members has been on the increase.  This is due mainly to the he ightened attention which governments now pay to 
meeting public policy objectives for higher food a nd safety standards as well as more stringent 
environmental regulations.  Nationa l and regional public policy concerns contribute to the complexity 
of NTMs and it has been suggested that as economies grow, concerns over health, safety, 
environmental quality and other social concerns ta ke on a more central role.  These public policy 
concerns are now having more of an impact on trade.  Meanwhile, a central challenge facing all 
governments is how to pursue public policy objec tives while respecting multilateral trade rules.  
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the resp onsibility of the WTO Secretariat and is without 
prejudice to the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.   
2 Document WT/L/844 (in this background note, SVEs are those WTO Members which supported 
proposals made on behalf of SVE concerns in the various Doha Development Agenda negotiating groups). 
3 NTMs and NTBs are often referred to interchangeably by trade negotiators.  For example, such 
measures are referred to generally as NTBs in paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration of 2001 concerning the negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products.  Fo r ease of reference, however, this 
background note will use the term NTM. WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
Page 2  
 
  II. NON-TARIFF MEASURES AND THE WTO 
5. NTMs covered by the WTO disciplines are subject  to detailed provisions designed to prevent 
or at least minimize the adverse effects resulting from such measures.
4  They may be regarded as 
barriers to international trade when the measur e in place is being used by a government for 
competitive reasons rather than the stated public policy rationale.5 
6. Although technical measures may restrict trade, they also serve to improve welfare as in the 
case, for example, of safety requirements for consumer goods.  NTMs are used primarily to protect the health and safety of consumers, safeguard the environment, regulate domestic markets or extend protection to domestic firms.  NTMs have been a topic of concern since the establishment of the 
GATT in 1948 and have remained so in the WTO a nd in its current multilateral negotiation, the Doha 
Development Agenda (DDA).   
7. The WTO provides disciplines to ensure th at tariff commitments are not eluded or 
undermined.  These disciplines are necessary to minimize the trade distorting effects of a legitimate measure at the disposal of all WTO Members.  However, when WTO Ministers launched the DDA in 
2001, they agreed to "reduce or, as appropriate , eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or 
elimination of tariff peaks, high ta riffs, and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, in particular 
on products of export interest to developing countries".
6  With this decision, Ministers recognized the 
need for further tariff liberalization measures to be ag reed in the course of the DDA but also wished to 
address the growing number of NTMs which affect world trade.  
8. In those countries where tariffs have been lo wered or eliminated as a result of regional 
cooperation, there has been an increase in surcha rges and other additional fees placed on imports.  
This seems to reflect the problem of fiscal depe ndence of some developing countries on imports and 
their need to erect new charges to  compensate for the loss of tariff revenue.  This type of NTM is 
particularly prevalent among smaller developing countries and Least-developed countries (LDCs).7 
9. NTMs can also have a distortionary effect on tr ade between developing countries.  Such trade 
is often hampered by inefficient customs and ad ministrative bureaucracy.  In developing countries, 
customs procedures are for the most part not auto mated and the customs clearance processes can be 
long and complex.  Combined, inefficient procedur es and excessive formalities generally result in a 
high degree of non-official trade that is not reflected in trade statistics.8  
III. NON-TARIFF MEASURES AND SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
10. Integration into global markets offers SVEs th e opportunity for more rapid economic growth.  
Most developing countries export to high-income countries but a number of tariffs and NTMs exist 
                                                      
4 OECD. (2003).  "Note on Issues for Discussi on, Global Forum on Trade, The Market Access 
Challenge In The Doha Development Agenda".  Orga nisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 
Paris, France. Available at:  http://www.oecd.org/dat aoecd/24/47/2956268.pdf . 
5 WTO. (2012).  "Looking Beyond International Cooperation on Tariffs: NTMs and Services 
Regulation in the XXIst Century".  World Trade Organisation. Geneva.  
6 The Doha Ministerial Declaration, para. 16, November 2001. 
7 OECD. (2005).  "Analysis of Non-Tariff Barriers of Concern to Developing Countries". Organisation 
for Economic Cooperation and Devel opment".  France. Available at:  " http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5lgmv2mff4 8q.pdf?expires=134018570 9&id=id&accname=guest&che
cksum=6ACCC57018E0CD134E4968E980465255 ". 
8 OECD. (2005).  "Analysis of Non-Tariff Barriers of Concern to Developing Countries". Organisation 
for Economic Cooperation and Devel opment. France". Available at:  " http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5lgmv2mff4 8q.pdf?expires=134018570 9&id=id&accname=guest&che
cksum=6ACCC57018E0CD134E4968E980465255 ".  WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
 Page 3 
 
 
  that hamper exports, making it increasingly difficult for them to take full advantage of global trade.  
Moreover, companies from smaller countries often find themselves faced with inadequate domestic 
trade-related infrastructure and various administra tive obstacles to trade which would have to be 
addressed in order to further facilitate exports.9  NTMs have gained in importance and are often 
considered by practitioners to have surpassed tariffs  in their overall trade-impeding effects.  Exports 
of SVEs, as with exports of other trading partners , are often negatively impacted by such NTMS as 
those imposed on imports at the border (e.g. through import quotas, import prohibitions, import 
licensing, export taxes or export bans) and those a pplied behind-the-border.  Behind-the-border NTMs 
fall into two categories:  the first concerns subs idies, domestic taxes and other charges; the second, 
regulatory measures such as food, hea lth and environmental regulations.10  A number of programmes 
are in place at the WTO and at other inter-governme ntal organizations to assist developing countries 
and SVEs to help them build capacity to address these measures.  
11. In the WTO, NTMs are the subject of several  different agreements.  These include the 
Agreement on Anti-Dumping, Agreement on Safegua rds, Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, 
the Agreement on pre-Shipment Inspection and the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  Behind-the-border 
NTMs are addressed in the Agreement on the Appli cation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS Agreement), the Agreement on Technical Barrier s to Trade (TBT Agreement), the Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures Agreement and also th e subsidies components of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.11   
12. The relative frequency of the use of technical  measures is increasing in both developed and 
developing countries.  Such measures do, howev er, constitute a hurdle to  developing country 
exporters, particularly from SVEs.  The latter, in  particular, often struggle with the sometimes 
complex requirements they must meet in order to realize sales abroad.  
13. NTMs are relatively more important for SVEs because they inevitably incur higher costs per 
unit due to the normally small size of their expor t bases and their inability to take advantage of 
economies of scale.  
14. Many SVEs are wholly or partly dependent on their fisheries sector which provides an 
important source of food producti on, revenue and employment.  However, even under trade 
preferences extended to LDCs under, for example, the European Union's Everything But Arms (EBA) 
preference scheme, such preferenc es do not automatically guarantee market access to SVEs.  Exports 
from SVEs are still required to comply with NTMs such as SPS measures.  Many SVEs do not have 
sufficient capacity to meet or certify compliance wi th these standards, thereby severely limiting their 
exports to what are often high value markets.12 
15. SVEs are most affected by NTMs that are specific to the type of goods they export.  Countries 
whose trade is characterised by labour-intensi ve products such as textiles and garments are 
particularly affected by such NTMs and technical regulations such as rules of origin requirements.  
Countries which export agricultural goods are most affected by SPS measures and agricultural export 
                                                      
9 ITC. (2011). "Sri Lanka: Company Perspectives: An ITC Series on Non-Tariff Measures". 
International Trade Centre. Geneva. 
10 OECD.  "The challenge of designing non-tari ff measures that enhance welfare and trade." 
Organization for Economic Cooperation a nd Development". France. Available at: 
http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_21571361_43893445_44368717_1_1_1_1,00.html .  
11 OECD. "The challenge of designing non-tari ff measures that enhance welfare and trade". 
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris. Available at: 
http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_21571361_43893445_44368717_1_1_1_1,00.html . 
12 STDF. (2011).  "The Ongoing Challenge of Meeting SPS Standards in LDCs: Evidence from the 
Fisheries Sector". Available at: 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/F iles/AidForTrade/STDFNote_CaseStories(BenMozBanLaV).pdf . WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
Page 4  
 
  subsidies.
13  Compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary measures remains an area of concern in 
harnessing the full potential of this sector.14  Although it is difficult to evaluate the full effect of 
NTMs on SVEs due to the lack of transparency concerning their scope and effect, SVEs face difficulties with a broad range of procedures such as the technical testing, inspection and certification 
requirements needed to comply with a given NTM.
15 
16. The results of business surveys conducted by th e International Trade Centre in 2011 provide 
further evidence of the predominance of SPS a nd TBT measures in NTMs encountered by firms 
engaging in international trade.16  Figure 1 shows the distribution of NTMs by type of measure in 
agriculture and manufacturing. Exporters of agri cultural products report mo re problems related to 
SPS/TBT measures (i.e. technical requirements pl us conformity assessment) than exporters of 
manufactured goods (59 per cent for the former, 34 per cent for the latter).  On the other hand, 
pre-shipment inspection, para-tariff measures17 and rules of origin are comparatively more 
challenging for exporters of non-agricultural products .  Export-related measures seem to present fewer 
problems for agricultural exporters than for manufac turers, since the share of these measures in all 
reported NTM cases is four percentage points lower in the agriculture sector (23 per cent) than in 
manufacturing (27 per cent). 
Figure 1:  Type of NTM by sector, 2010 (Percentage) 
Technical  
requirements,  
24%
Conformity  
assessment,  
36%
Pre‐shipment  
inspection,  3%Para‐tariff 
measures  , 4%Quantity 
control 
measures,  3%Rules of 
origin, 6%Other import 
related 
measures,  1%Export related 
measures,  
23%Agriculture
Technical  
requirements,  
10%
Conformity  
assessment,  
24%
Pre‐shipment  
inspection,  8%
Para‐tariff 
measures,  8%Quantity 
control 
measures,  5%Finance 
Measures,  2%Rules of 
origin, 14%Other import 
related 
measures,  2%Export related 
measures,  
27%Manufacturing
 
 
Source:  ITC business surveys on NTMs. 
Note:  Surveys were conducted in 11 developing an d least-developed economies:  Burkina Faso , Egypt, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, 
Mauritius, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda and Uruguay.  Minerals and arms are excluded from the survey. 
 
                                                      
13 OECD. (2005).  "Analysis of Non-Tariff Barriers of Concern to Developing Countries." 
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at:  " http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5lgmv2mff4 8q.pdf?expires=134018570 9&id=id&accname=guest&che
cksum=6ACCC57018E0CD134E4968E980465255 ". 
14 STDF. (2011). "The Ongoing Challenge of Meeting SPS Standards in LDCs: Evidence from the 
Fisheries Sector". Available at: 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/F iles/AidForTrade/STDFNote_CaseStories(BenMozBanLaV).pdf . 
15 ITC. (2011). "Sri Lanka:  Country Perspec tives. An ITC Series on Non-Tariff Measures". 
International Trade Centre. Geneva.  
16 Figures 1 and 2 and the accompanying text in paragraphs 16 and 17 are drawn from the WTO World 
Trade Report 2012 which will be published on 17 July 2012. 
17 Para-tariff measures comprise various taxes and charges other than tariffs and customs duties.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
 Page 5 
 
 
  17. Information compiled in the survey conducted by the ITC can be further broken down into 
sub-categories on NTMs.  These are shown in Figure 2 and concern measures related to either SPS or 
TBT measure (i.e. technical requirements plus c onformity assessment).  Product certification, which 
is perceived as burdensome by 37 per cent of reporti ng firms, is the most frequently cited type of 
measure in this group.  It is followed by product t esting at 9 per cent, and inspection requirements at 
8 per cent.  Together, these three NTM18 sub-types are responsible for more than half of all firm 
complaints about SPS/TBT measures. 
 
Figure 2:  TBT/SPS import related measures by sub-type (Percentage) 2010   
 
 
Source:  ITC business surveys on NTMs. 
Note:  Surveys were conducted in 11 developing an d least-developed economies: Burkina Faso , Egypt, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, 
Mauritius, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda and Uruguay. Minerals and ar ms are excluded from the survey. 
 
18. The WTO provides various platforms to raise issu es related to specific NTMs maintained by 
other Members.  Specific trade concerns (STCs) raised in the SPS and TBT Committee meetings shed 
light on the topic of NTMs.  Business exporters  facing NTMs may complain to their governments 
about alleged violations of either  agreement.  However, it is the government which ultimately decides 
whether to raise the specific concerns at the respective WTO committee meetings.  Additionally, 
                                                      
18 UNCTAD. (2012).  "Non-Tariff Measures to Trade: Economic and Policy Issues for Developing 
Countries".  Developing Countries in International Trade Studies, United Nations  Conference on Trade and 
Development. Geneva.  
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
Page 6  
 
  Members are required to be present in order to ra ise concerns and explain their positions in these 
committees.  At times, financial resources, espec ially for non-Geneva based WTO Members, may 
prevent participation in these committees.  The nu mber of STCs raised in these committees may, 
therefore, not be an accurate reflection of the actual obstacles facing a country's exporters.   
19. The number of STCs raised by SVEs in the TBT Committee, for example, indicates that 
concerns related to technical negotiations and standards, as well as testing and certification 
procedures, have been raised occasionally but that mo st concerns in this area are still raised by other 
developed or developing countries. 
20. Figure 3 below shows the number of new issues raised each year by each category of 
Member.  In the past 17 years, SVEs have onl y raised 16 STCs in the SPS Committee (See Annex I 
for a listing).  Most of the STCs raised by SVEs ha ve been related to food safety standards and human 
health concerns.  
Figure 3:  Number of SPS specific trade concern s raised by specific categories of Members  
 
4101719
8
51929
19
1316
710
6558
2914
4521
17
111011
5691415
6
21211224
22
05101520253035
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Number of Issues
Developed countries Developing countries Least-Developed Countries SVEs 
 
*Adapted from WTO document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev12. 
 
21. There have been 328 SPS STCs raised since 1995.  SVEs have only accounted for less than 
5 per cent of these concerns.  This indicates that  the SPS Committee presents a platform that has 
perhaps not been fully utilised by SVEs to tackle th eir concerns and specific issues related to NTMs.  
SVEs have, however, supported 27 STCs raised  by other WTO Members in the past. 
22. WTO Members use the TBT Committee as a forum to discuss issues related to specific 
measures such as technical regulations, standards or conformity assessment procedures maintained by other Members.  The figure below illustrates the number of specific trade concerns discussed each 
year since 1995.  In the past 17 years, there have b een a total of 330 trade concerns.  SVEs have been 
involved in 18 new and 16 previously raised STCs in the TBT Committee (See Annex II for a listing).  
These figures constitute 10 per cent of all STCs ra ised in the TBT Committee.  The TBT Committee 
also remains an effective platform for SVEs to address their specific concerns. 
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Figure 4: Number of TBT specific trade concerns raised per year 
 
 
 
*Source : WTO document G/TBT/31 
 
23. Almost half of the TBT STCs in which SVEs have been involved have been against the 
European Union.  Having been involved in 13  trade concerns, the Dominican Republic has 
participated in the most STCs.  In discussions at the Committee between 1995 and 2011, the most 
frequently invoked concerns by SVEs were those re lating to the need for more information, or 
clarification about the measure at issue. 
IV. SVES AND A POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD ON NON-TARIFF MEASURES 
24. One of the most pertinent issues faced by SV Es when it comes to addressing NTMs is the 
lack of SVE participation in the international standa rdisation processes.  This is mainly due to a lack 
of technical experts and inadequate financial res ources.  The situation is further exacerbated by the 
non-adoption of common international standards.  The lack of harmonization and the mutual 
recognition of standards at the international level raises other obstacles concerning different technical 
requirements among Members.  These differences can raise compliance costs and often discourage 
countries from diversifying their export markets.19  
25. Some Members have also noted that NTMs applied by certain WTO Members are more 
stringent and restrictive than those specified by relevant international bodies.  Sometimes no 
legitimate explanation is provided.  Moreover, th e upward revision of these standards at regular 
intervals makes it difficult for SVEs and some devel oping countries to keep up with and adapt to the 
changing requirements. 
26. The export of both goods and services plays a cr ucial role in the economic development of 
most SVEs.  There is, therefore, a need to foster technical coopera tion amongst the relevant 
stakeholders to assist SVEs in complying with specific NTMs.  Whilst NTMs may serve legitimate 
                                                      
19 OECD. (2005).  "Analysis of Non-Tariff Barriers of Concern to Developing Countries." Organisation 
for Economic Cooperation and Development.  Paris.  Available at:  " http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5lgmv2mff4 8q.pdf?expires=134018570 9&id=id&accname=guest&che
cksum=6ACCC57018E0CD134E4968E980465255 ". WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
Page 8  
 
  purposes, it is increasingly evident that they can  also serve as obstacles to exports from smaller 
countries facing a number of issues that prevent th em from complying with international standards.
20  
27. Compliance with NTMs is a process of continuous improvement which requires ongoing 
investment and capacity building in both the public and private sector.  Research has indicated that a 
proactive approach to NTM capacity building is more  effective than identifyi ng the need for capacity 
building after a trade problem has occurred in respon se to a crisis.  The identification of NTMs that 
are of particular concern to SVEs could help dete rmine priority targets for strengthening special and 
differential treatment.20 
V. FURTHER READING 
GTZ. (2010). "EU Services Markets: Barriers and Opportunities for ACP Exporters." Available at: 
http://www.gtz.de/en/dokumente/gtz2010-en-eu-services-markets.pdf . 
ICTSD. "Cross-border trade in services: Barriers an d opportunities in EU services markets for ACP 
exporters."  Available at:  http://ictsd.org/i/competitiveness/94184/ . 
ICTSD. (2006). "Fisheries, International Trade and Sustainable Development". Available at: 
http://ictsd.org/downloads/ 2008/06/fish_policypaper.pdf . 
ITC. (2011). "Sri Lanka:  Country Perspectives.  An ITC Series on Non-Tariff Measures". Available 
at:  "http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/intracenorg/ Content/Publications/NTM%20Report_Sri%20La
nka.pdf ". 
ITC. "Trade Supports Institutions".  Available at:   
http://www.intracen.org/trade- support/non-tariff-measures/ . 
 
OECD. (2005). "Analysis of Non-Tariff Barriers of  Concern to Developing Countries." Available at: 
"http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5lgmv 2mff48q.pdf?expires=134018 5709&id=id&accname=
guest&checksum=6ACCC57018E0CD134E4968E980465255 ." 
 
OECD. (2003). "Note on Issues for Discussion.  Global Forum on Trade: The Market Access 
Challenge in the Doha Development Ag enda. Paris, France.  Available at: 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/47/2956268.pdf . 
STDF. "The Ongoing Challenge of Meeting SPS St andards in LDCs: Evidence from the Fisheries 
Sector."  Available at: 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/Files/AidFor Trade/STDFNote_CaseStories(BenMozBanLaV).pdf . 
 
UNCTAD. (2000). "Non-Tariff Measures: Evidence from Selected Developing Countries.  Future 
Research Agenda." Available at:  http://unctad.org/en/ docs/ditctab20093_en.pdf . 
                                                      
20 STDF. (2011). "The Ongoing Challenge of Meeting SPS Standards in LDCs: Evidence from the 
Fisheries Sector". Available at:   
http://www.standardsfacility.org/F iles/AidForTrade/STDFNote_CaseStories(BenMozBanLaV).pdf    WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
 Page 9 
 
 
  UNCTAD. (2012). "Non-Tariff Measures to Trade:  Economic and Policy Issues for Developing 
Countries".  Developing Countries in Internati onal Trade Studies, United Nations Conference on 
Trade and Development. Geneva. 
_______________ 
 
 
 
   
 
    
 
     
 
  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
Page 10 ANNEX I 
 
SPS STCs Raised by SVEs 
 
STC 
# Title Members 
raising the 
concern Members supporting the concern Members 
maintaining the 
measure First date 
raised Subject keywords 
19 Protected zones Uruguay Chile, Mexico, 
South Africa European Union 01/03/1997 Plant Health 
22 Measures affecting 
imports of bovine meat Uruguay Argentina, Brazil Israel 01/03/1997 Animal Health 
Zoonoses 
Human Health 
39 Maximum levels for 
certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs Argentina, 
Australia, Bolivia, 
Plurinational 
State of, Brazil, India, 
Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Philippines, 
Senegal, 
Thailand, The Gambia Canada, Colombia, Mexico, 
Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, 
South Africa, Turkey, 
United States, Uruguay European Union 01/03/1998 Food safety 
Human Health International Standards / Harmonization 
Technical Assistance 
71 Restrictions on meat 
and dairy products Uruguay   El Salvador 01/11/1999 Animal Health 
Food safety 
131 Pesticide and antibiotic 
limits in honey 
(Directive 96/23) Cuba 
 
   European Union 01/06/2002 Food safety 
Human Health 
145 Import restrictions on 
chicken meat imports Costa Rica 
  Argentina, Chile, Thailand Honduras 01/11/2002 Animal Health 
Zoonoses Human Health 
Risk assessment 
Sufficiency of scientific evidence International Standards / HarmonizationTerritory 
Protection 
Equivalence Food safety 
 
  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/26
 Page 11STC 
# Title Members 
raising the 
concern Members supporting the concern Members 
maintaining the 
measure First date 
raised Subject keywords 
176 Notification on 
maximum tolerance levels for Ocratoxin A 
in coffee Colombia, 
Papua New Guinea Bolivia, Plurinational State of, 
Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, 
Dominican Republic, 
Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Mexico, 
Nicaragua, Peru European Union, 
Germany 01/10/2003 Food safety 
International Standards / Harmonization Human Health 
183 Implementation of 
ISPM 15 Chile, 
Uruguay Argentina, 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of, 
China, Colombia, Mexico, 
Paraguay Certain Members 01/10/2003 Plant Health 
International Standards / Harmonization 
219 EurepGAP 
requirements for bananas Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines Argentina, Belize, Cuba,Dominica, 
Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, South Africa European Union 01/06/2005 Food safety Private standards Control, Inspection 
and Approval Proced ures Human Health 
Technical Barriers to Trade 
220 Proposed regulations 
for piper methysticum (kava-kava) Fiji  European Union, 
United Kingdom 01/06/2005 Food safety 
Human Health 
226 Inspection regime for 
agricultural products Costa Rica Argentina, Canada, 
Colombia, European Union, United States  Panama 01/06/2005 Animal Health 
Food safety 
230 Phytosanitary 
requirements on fresh oranges Nicaragua  Costa Rica 01/10/2005 Plant Health 
Regionalization Pest/Disease status 
292 Prohibition of 
Ornamental Plants 
Larger than 18 inches Costa Rica  United States of 
America 17/03/2010 Plant Health 
Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures 
312 Restrictions on beef 
exports due to BSE-
related concerns Nicaragua  Mexico 20/10/2010 Animal Health 
Zoonoses 
316 United States Import 
Restrictions on 
Chrysanthemums Costa Rica  United States of 
America 30/03/2011 Plant Health Pest/Disease status 
321 Japan's MRLs applied 
to Sesame Paraguay  Japan 30/06/2011 Human Health 
Food safety 
  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
Page 12  
ANNEX II 
 
New TBT STCs Raised by SVEs 
 
Ordered 
Symbol Title Member(s) concerned Members 
maintaining First date 
raised Issues 
35 European Communities – Directive 
2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the Use of certain Hazardous Substances 
in Electrical and Electronic 
Equipment (RoHS) and Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and 
Electronic Equipment (WEEE) United States, Canada, Australia, 
Japan, Mexico, Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, Republic of, 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 
China, Jordan, Israel European Union 31/03/1999 time to adapt "reasonable interval" 
transparency further information, clarification 
unnecessary barrier to trade 
other, text rationale, legitimacy 
39 European Communities – Regulation 
on Certain Wine Sector Products Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Peru, Paraguay, 
Uruguay, United States, South Africa European Union 01/10/1999 Non-product related processing and production 
methods (nprPPM) 
special and differential treatment 
technical assistance 
further information, clarification 
discrimination time to adapt, "reasonable interval" 
transparency 
unnecessary barrier to trade other, text 
53 Belgium – Draft Law aiming at 
Promoting Socially Responsible 
Production Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, 
Egypt, Hong Kong, China, India, 
Mexico, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand, United States European Union 30/03/2001 Transparency unnecessa ry barrier to trade 
discrimination rationale, legitimacyfurther 
information, clarificationother, textnprPPM 
88 European Communities – Regulation 
on the Registration, Evaluation and 
Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) Argentina, Australia, Brazil, 
Botswana, Canada, Switzerland, 
Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, 
Korea, Republic of, Kuwait, Mexico, 
Malaysia, Qatar, Pakistan, 
Philippines, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United States, 
Uruguay, Chinese, Taipei, 
El Salvador, Thailand, Singapore, Russian Federation, India European Union 20/03/2003 discrimination 
further information, clarification 
international standards other, text 
rationale, legitimacy 
special and differential treatment 
technical assistance 
time to adapt, "reasonable interval" transparency 
unnecessary barrier to trade 
   
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/26
 Page 13Ordered 
Symbol Title Member(s) concerned Members 
maintaining First date 
raised Issues 
102 Brazil – Decree on Beverages and 
Spirits Barbados, Dominican Republic, 
Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, European Union, United States Brazil 07/11/2003 further information, clarification 
unnecessary barrier to trade transparency 
107 Argentina – MERCOSUR Regulation 
on Definitions Relating to Alcoholic 
Beverages other than Fermented Cuba, Dominican Republic, 
Barbados, European Union, Jamaica, 
Mexico, United States, Trinidad and Tobago Argentina 01/07/2004 further information, clarification 
unnecessary barrier to trade 
transparency other, text 
rationale, legitimacy 
international standards 
135 Norway – Restrictions on the use of 
Deca-bromo diphenylether (deca-BDE) Japan, Jordan, Israel, United States Norway 15/03/2006 further information, clarification 
unnecessary barrier to trade other, text 
137 Sweden – Restrictions on the use of 
Deca-bromo diphenylether (deca-
BDE) Japan, Jordan, United States, Israel, 
Chinese,Taipei European Union 15/03/2006 further information, clarification 
unnecessary barrier to trade 
other, text 
165 European Communities – Regulation 
on Classification, Labelling and 
Packaging of Substances and 
Mixtures (ATPs and CLP) Argentina, Australia, Brazil, 
Botswana, Canada, Chile, China, 
Colombia, Cuba, Dominican 
Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, India, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Malaysia, 
Mauritius, Philippines, Thailand, 
Turkey, United States, Bolivarian Republic of Venezu ela, South Africa, 
Zimbabwe, Russian Federation, 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia European Union 05/07/2007 further information, clarification 
other, text rationale, legitimacy 
special and differential treatment 
time to adapt, "reasonable interval" transparency 
unnecessary barrier to trade 
discrimination 
174 Argentina – Measures affecting 
market access for pharmaceutical 
products Colombia, Chile, Paraguay Argentina 09/11/2007 further information, clarification 
transparency 
discrimination 
178 Norway – Proposed regulation 
concerning specific hazardous 
substances in consumer products Israel, Japan, Jordan,  
Korea, Republic of, United States Norway 09/11/2007 further information, clarification 
unnecessary barrier to trade 
rationale, legitimacy 
time to adapt, "reasonable interval" 
186 European Communities – Production 
and Labelling of Organic Products Argentina, Ecuado r, Cuba European Un ion 20/03/2008 unnecessary  barrier to trade 
other, text rationale, legitimacy 
international standards special and differential treatment 
nprPPM  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/26 
Page 14 Ordered 
Symbol Title Member(s) concerned Members 
maintaining First date 
raised Issues 
205 European Communities – Novel 
foods Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, 
Costa Rica, Bolivia, Cuba, Brazil, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela European Union 05/11/2008 further information, clarification 
unnecessary barrier to trade international standards 
242 European Communities – Tariff Rate 
Quota on Meat and Meat Products Australia, Uruguay, Paraguay, 
Argentina European Union 25/06/2009 further information, clarification 
unnecessary barrier to trade 
nprPPM 
249 Canada – Bill C-32 amendment to 
Tobacco Act Argentina, Mexico, Switzerland, 
Colombia, European Union, Turkey, 
United States, Burundi, Mozambique, Croatia, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Ecuador, Egypt, Jordan, Uganda, 
Zambia, Tanzania, Chile, Kenya, Indonesia, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Japan, 
Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Brazil, Malawi Canada 05/11/2009 other, text rationale, legitimacy 
discrimination 
further information, clarification unnecessary barrier to trade 
transparency 
288 Brazil - Draft Resolution No. 112, 29 
November 2010; maximum levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide 
permitted on tobacco  products and 
prohibition of additives Nigeria, Philippines, Russian 
Federation, Guatemala, Turkey, Malawi, Zambia, Mexico, Indonesia, 
Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Dominican 
Republic, Ecuador, Mozambique, Jordan, Kenya, Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Chile, 
Nicaragua, Honduras, Cuba, Colombia, European Union Brazil 24/03/2011 unnecessa ry barrier to trade 
special and differential treatment discrimination 
transparency 
international standards further information, clarification 
rationale, legitimacy 
other, text 
304 Australia – Tobacco Plain Packaging 
Bill 2011 European Union, Dominican 
Republic, Indonesia, Mexico, Chile, 
China, Colombia, Cuba, Nicaragua, 
Ukraine, Switzerland, Honduras, Philippines, Nigeria, Turkey, Zambia, 
El Salvador, Zimbabwe, Japan, 
Hong Kong, China, Russian Federation, Guatemala, Canada, 
Norway, Brazil, New Zealand, 
Australia Australia 15/06/2011 discrimination 
transparency 
time to adapt, "reasonable interval"unnecessary 
barrier to trade further information, clarification special and differential treatment 
rationale, legitimacy 
international standards  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/26
 Page 15Ordered 
Symbol Title Member(s) concerned Members 
maintaining First date 
raised Issues 
322 European Union - issue with respect 
of honey containing pollen from genetically modified maize MON810, 
Ruling from ECJ Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, 
Mexico, Uruguay, Canada European Union 10/11/2011 further information, clarification 
other, text rationale, legitimacy 
special and differential treatment 
unnecessary barrier to trade international standards 
 
 
__________