RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/M/36 
4 August 2005 
 (05-3512) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 16-17 JUNE 2005 
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Margers Krams (Latvia)
 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA......................................................................................................... .......2  
II. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT ...................................2  
A. STATEMENT FROM MEMBERS UNDER ARTICLE 15.2...................................................................................2  
B. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS .......................................................................................................................2  
1. New Concerns ................................................................................................................... ....................2  
2. Concerns Previ ously Raised..................................................................................................... .............3  
C. OTHER MATTERS ............................................................................................................................... ........9  
1. Mexico - Publication of the na tional standardization progra mme (G/TBT/GEN/7/Add.2) ..................9  
2. Procedures established at the C odex Alimentarius Commission ..........................................................9  
III. TRIENNIAL REVIEW............................................................................................................... ..........10  
A. ISSUES ARISING FROM THE THIRD TRIENNIAL REVIEW ............................................................................10  
1. Good Regulato ry Prac tice....................................................................................................... ............10  
2. Conformity Assessment .......................................................................................................... .............11  
3. Technical As sistance ........................................................................................................... ................11  
4. Other issues arising from th e Third Trienni al Review ........................................................................12  
B. PREPARATION OF THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW .................................................................................12  
1. Implementation and Administra tion of the Agreement........................................................................12  
2. Good Regulato ry Prac tice....................................................................................................... ............13  
3. Transparency ................................................................................................................... ...................16  
4. Intellectual Property Rights  and Standa rdization............................................................................... 20 
5. Technical As sistance ........................................................................................................... ................21  
6. Special and Differe ntial Treatment............................................................................................. ........22  
IV. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION......................................................................................................... 23 
V. OBSERVERS ...................................................................................................................... .......................23  
A. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS ..........................................................................................................23  
B. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS .......................................................................................................................23  
VI. DATE OF NEXT  MEETI NG ........................................................................................................... ....23 
ANNEX 1: WORK PROGRAMME FOR THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW....................................24  
 
 
    
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's ow n responsibility and is without prejudice to the positions of 
Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 2  
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/2579.   
II. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
A. S
TATEMENT FROM MEMBERS UNDER ARTICLE 15.2 
2. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the Statement on Implementation and 
Administration of the Agreement submitted by Kenya (G/TBT/2/Add.86, and Suppl.1).2  
B. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the recommendation of the Third Triennial 
Review, that encouraged Members to share with the Committee, on a voluntary basis, any follow-up 
information on previously raised specific trade concerns.   
1. New Concerns 
(i) European Communities – Disposable lighters 
4. The representative of China  raised an issue regarding a draft decision by the 
European Commission on disposable lighters.   She informed the Committee that the 
European Commission was considering a decision to require disposable lighters with an ex-factory 
unit price, or customs evaluation price, lower than  two Euros to be equipped with a child resistance 
mechanism.  In the absence of such  a mechanism, these lighters would not be able to be marketed in 
the European Communities.  While China appreciated  the legitimate objective of protecting the safety 
of children, the draft decision raised concerns. 
5. First, in the view of the representative of China,  to assume a relationship between the price of 
a lighter and its safety was against the principles contained in the TBT Agreement:  could the 
European Commission provide scientific  evidence that a lighter of 2.01  Euros was safer than one that 
cost 1.99 Euros?  Second, in terms of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, it was noted that the draft 
decision aimed at protecting children under five from being injured by the misuse of lighters.  The intended end-use of lighters (according to the draft decision itself) was that of "deliberately igniting 
cigarettes, cigars and pipes".  Certain statistics showed that more than 90 per cent of families in 
Europe did not have children under five years of ag e.  China doubted that all parents of the less 
than 10 per cent of the families (with children of le ss than five years of age) smoked in the presence 
of their children, and, even if they did, it was doubtful that they would leave lighters within the reach 
of children under five.  With this analysis, it was obvious that the mandatory requirement for child 
resistant mechanisms on lighters increased the cost for consumers, and, therefore, was against the 
interest of a very large proportion of consumers.  Such a decision did not comply with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and went beyond the proportiona lity principle, which the European Communities 
themselves upheld.  Third, a child resistant mechan ism was not necessarily th e best way to protect 
children.  There were other alternatives which were less trade restrictive, for example, to consolidate 
the parents' or guardians' sense of responsibility,  to advise parents with children under five to only 
purchase and use lighters with child resistant mechanis ms (or buy the more expensive ones), or to put 
the lighters out of reach of children.  Fourth, the data  that the draft decision referred to was out of date 
and lacked scientific rationale.  This was not in co mpliance with Article 2.3 of the TBT Agreement.  
An official decision on lighters needed to be based on reports in respect of th e risk that disposable 
lighters posed for children less than five years of age.  The representative of China had not seen such 
data.  She urged the European Communities to ob serve its obligations under the TBT Agreement and 
to lay down safety regulations regarding lighters in a scientific and less trade restrictive manner.   
                                                     
 
2 The latest list of statements under Article  15.2 is contained in document G/TBT/GEN/1/ Rev.2.  The latest list of enquiry point  
contacts is contained in G/TBT/ENQ/26.  The latest informati on on Members' enquiry points is available on the TBT web page 
(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tb t_e/tbt_enquiry_points_e.htm).  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 3 
 
 
6. The representative of the European Communities  informed the Committee that the draft 
decision at issue would be notified shortly to the TBT Committee.3  A reasonable period of time 
would be given to Members to submit their comment s and China was invited to submit comments in 
that context.  
(ii) Korea – Residual Limits and Test methods for Pesticide Residues/Heavy Metals in Herbal 
Medicines (G/TBT/N/KOR/84) 
7. The representative of China  expressed concern about the above-mentioned notified regulation 
and disappointment that although comments had be en sent to Korea on 14 and 15 March 2005, no 
written response had been received.  She urged the representative of Korea to fulfil its obligations 
under the TBT Agreement by explaining the justificat ion for the technical regulation and by providing 
relevant scientific evidence for it. 
8. The representative of Korea  noted that he would transmit the concerns to capital.  
2. Concerns Previously Raised 
(i) United States – Country of Origin Labelli ng (G/TBT/N/USA/25 and USA/83 and Corr.1) 
9. The representative of the United States  wished to follow up on a concern raised by Canada 
and China at the last meeting of the TBT Committee.4  It was recalled that the United States had 
notified its proposal on a number of occasions, most recently as G/TBT/N/USA/83.  She recalled that the comment period – which had been extende d – had closed on 2 February 2005 and, 
on 4 April 2005, the regulation had become effectiv e.  During the comment process, the United States 
had received substantial comments from a number of pa rties, including Canada.  As a result, the US 
Department of Agriculture's marketing service had ma de certain changes to the Interim Final Rule.  
The changes included more flexible labelling requi rements with respect to blended products from 
multi-origins.  Moreover, the Agricultural ma rketing service had broadened the definition of 
processed food items to include additional products su ch as canned fish.  This was beneficial because 
processed food items were not subject to mandatory requirements.  During the first six months of 
implementation, the United States would focus its efforts on facilitating compliance, through 
education, rather than taking any puniti ve action to address lack of compliance.  
(ii) European Communities – Regulation on the Regi stration, Evaluation and Authorisation of 
Chemicals (REACH) (G/TBT/W/208 and G/TBT/N/EEC/52 and Add.1) 
10. The representative of Cuba
 recalled that several delegations had expressed concern about the 
draft REACH regulation.  The European Communities was requested to provide more information on 
the progress that had been made on the draft.  He  also asked whether the agency responsible for 
administering the implementation of the system had drafted or implemented any measures aimed at 
assisting affected developing countries.  
11. The representative of Australia  remained concerned that the EC draft legislation on REACH 
was more trade restrictive and cumbersome than ne cessary to fulfil its objectives and that it did not 
focus on the substances that presented the greatest risk .  She wished to draw the Committee's attention 
to some points which were additional to previously raised concerns.  Fi rst, regarding Article 2.1 of the 
TBT Agreement (national treatment),  Members had to provide, for tec hnical regulations, treatment no 
less favourable than that accorded to like pro ducts of national origin.  Although the REACH 
legislation required registration of chemical products regardless of or igin, the fact that substances 
already registered in the European Communities were  not required to be re-registered when bought by 
a downstream producer in the European Communiti es was likely to put imported products at a 
                                                      
3 The measure was subsequently notified as G/TBT/N/EEC/89, dated 5 July 2005. 
4 G/TBT/M/35, paras. 31 and 32. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 4  
 
competitive disadvantage.  EC producers that used  chemical substances were more likely to source 
substances that had already been registered from w ithin the European Commun ities, rather than to 
source the substance from outside the European Co mmunities and have to assume the registration 
obligation themselves.  This raised concerns as to whether the European Communities was acting 
consistently with its national treatment  obligation under the TBT Agreement. 
12. Second, the representative of Australia recalled that Article 2.2 (on trade restrictiveness) 
provided that technical regulations should not be more trade restrictive th an necessary to fulfil a 
legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fu lfilment would create.  Australia was concerned 
that, by including them within its scope, REAC H created unnecessary restrictions on trade in 
minerals, ores, concentrates and metals. These elem ents posed minimal risk to public health.  
Requiring registration and/or authorization of ores an d ore concentrates that presented minimal danger 
to public health was not necessary to fulfil th e objectives of REACH.  A less trade restrictive 
alternative would be to exclude from the scope of REACH ores and ore concentrates that posed 
minimal risk to public health and the environment.   Australia had similar concerns with regard to 
metals in massive forms.   
13. The representative of Japan
 noted that her delegation had yet to receive any adequate 
response from the European Communities to concerns expressed at previous meetings, as well as on other occasions – such as in bilateral dialogues.  Ma ny of these concerns remained valid.  Moreover, 
she drew the Committee's attention to the many comments on the proposal that had been made by 
stakeholders within  the European Communities.   
14. The representative of Canada
 noted that her Government had recently submitted 
recommendations on the REACH legislation to the Industry, Research and Energy Committee of the 
European Parliament.  Canada urged the Europ ean Communities to consider these recommendations.5  
While Canada supported the genera l goals of REACH, it was concerned with the workability of the 
EC proposals and the impact that REACH could ha ve on trade. In Canada 's case, the adverse 
consequences resulting from the draft legislation in cluded effects on exports to the EC market of 
metal and minerals, as well as pulp and paper a nd recyclables.  Among the recommendations made, 
Canada had recommended a risk-based alternative to  the proposed use of volume thresholds for the 
registration of substances under REACH.  She asked  the European Communiti es to provide an update 
on the current REACH legislative process and conf irm whether an additional WTO notification would 
be provided before implementation.   
15. The representatives of Chile , China , Korea,  Mexico , United States , and Uruguay  associated 
themselves with the comments and concerns expr essed by previous delegations.  While their own 
concerns remained on the table, they chose not to  repeat them at the current meeting.  The US 
delegation hoped that there woul d still be opportunities for the REACH proposals to be made more 
streamlined and effective.  The representatives of Mexico, Chile and Uruguay emphasized the need 
for technical assistance to facilitate the implementa tion of the REACH proposal.  In particular, there 
was a need to clearly identify the ways in which the specific situation of developing countries was 
being considered, and what programmes or alternativ es were being envisioned in terms of technical 
assistance.   
16. The representative of the European Communities  noted that there appeared to be no new 
concerns or issues raised at the current meeting.   He stressed that the European Communities had 
answered the written comments submit ted in the framework of the TBT notification procedure with a 
written reply on 28 October 2004.  This reply had, at that tim e, been accompanied by a process 
description of more than 100 pages.  Moreover, th e European Communities had made a very detailed 
presentation of the REACH proposal at the Novemb er 2004 meeting of the TBT Committee.  It had 
also informed the Committee, in March 2005, th at the proposal was being examined by the 
                                                      
5 These were made available as a Room Document at the meeting.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 5 
 
 
European Parliament as well as the Council of Mini sters under the Co-Decision Procedure.  The first 
reading in the European Parliament was still ong oing.  The European Communities would update its 
notification to the TBT Committee if there was any ma jor change to the proposal.  However, if that 
was the case, it would probably not happen before  the end of 2005 when the Common Position by the 
Council was expected.  Meanwhile, the European Co mmunities would continue its efforts to explain 
REACH to Members, to develop good quality guida nce and to pursue bilateral and multi-lateral 
dialogues.6 
17. The representative of Mexico  asked the European Communities,  with respect to the possible 
future notification, and with a view to mainta ining the principle of transparency, to make a 
notification even if the amendments were not substan tial, or even if these chan ges merely entailed, for 
instance, making the registration process simpler.  It  was worthwhile keeping all Members up to date 
with any change made. 
(iii) Switzerland – Ordinance on the Emission Level of  Passenger Cars with Compression Ignition 
Engines (G/TBT/N/CHE/39) 
18. The representative of Switzerland  referred to the previously raised issue regarding a draft 
Swiss regulation on particle filters for diesel engi nes about which some Members had expressed their 
concerns.  She confirmed to WTO Members that th e Parliamentary Committee at the origin of this 
draft had now withdrawn the proposal. 
(iv) Brazil – Decree on Beverages and Spirits (G/TBT/N/BRA/135 and G/TBT/N/BRA/160) 
19. The representative of Barbados  wished to register her delegation's appreciation for Brazil's 
bilateral response to her country's concerns, as well as that of others in the region.  Nevertheless, her 
authorities were still not fully satisfied that the r esponses covered Barbados' c oncerns which had been 
expressed since the November 2003 meeting of th e TBT Committee.  Specifically, Barbados was 
concerned that the amendments to the definitions of rum, cachaza, aguardiente  and other spirit 
strengths found in Decree 4851 could have significan t adverse effects on the trade of Barbados and 
other Caribbean rum producers.  The representative  of Barbados emphasized the need to set up 
technical consultations quickly on the issue.   
20. The representative of Brazil  reaffirmed his delegation's willingn ess to continue bilateral talks.  
He also stressed that the objective of the Brazilian legislation was neither to establish barriers to trade, 
nor to create obstacles to the imports of products from the region concerned.  
(v) Indonesia - Mandatory Standard for Tyre (G/TBT/N/IDN/13)  
21. The representative of th e European Communities  thanked the delegation of Indonesia for 
postponing the entry into force of the Mandato ry Indonesia National Standard for Tyres 
until 23 March 2006.  However, some  substantial questions relating to  the possible trade-restrictive 
effects of the Indonesian measure remained open.   The European Commun ities asked the Indonesian 
authorities to clarify, in particular, whether tyr es which complied with UN-ECE regulations would be 
accepted on the Indonesian market.  The European Communities was also interested in knowing to 
what extent the Indonesian authorities would simplify  the applicable technical guidelines in order to 
facilitate the implementation of the Decree. 
22. The representative of Indonesia  stated that she would pass on the EC questions to her capital. 
                                                      
6 Members' attention was drawn to the following Internet s ite where more detail was available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ 
enterprise/reach/ overview_en.htm. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 6  
 
(vi) European Communities – Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the Use of certain 
Hazardous Substances in Electrical and El ectronic Equipment (RoHS) and Directive 
2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) 
23. The representative of the United States
 stressed that with some limited exceptions, in 
July 2006, companies would have to comply with the above-cited Directive.  Despite this, companies 
were facing significant commercial uncertainties:  lack of sufficient, clear and legally binding 
guidance.  For instance, companies that had sought clarification on the exact product scope of RoHS, or how parts or service units that entered the European  Union prior to July 2006 would be treated, had 
not got definitive guidance.  In fact, the European  Commission had often been unable to clarify.  It 
had provided a document called Frequently Asked Questions  in May 2005 but this document was 
intended to provide guidance to its member States and contained a disclaimer which meant that it 
could not be considered definitive.  Moreover, there was a general lack of guidance about what 
conformity assessment procedures and test methods w ould be used to demonstrate conformity with 
RoHS.  In general, it appeared that EU member St ates were ill-equipped to answer specific questions 
about how they would enforce RoHS.   
24. More specifically, in cases where technically vi able alternatives did not exist, businesses 
faced a lengthy, onerous, uncertain and non-transpar ent exemption process.  This exemption process 
was overseen by the European Council's Tech nological Adaptation Committee (TAC).  In 
March 2005, the European Parliame nt challenged the procedures employed by the TAC, calling into 
question the entire process that companies had be en told to follow and creating more delays, 
uncertainty, and confusion regarding the status of th e exemptions currently pending before the TAC.  
It was possible that companies would not receive a final ruling on whether RoHS applied to them until 
January 2006 or later, which could be too late  for production design and manufacturing decisions. 
25. Given the substantial impacts of RoHS on in ternational trade, the United States urged the 
European Commission to provide sufficiently de tailed and legally binding guidance to give 
companies seeking to comply with RoHS greater co mmercial certainty.  The United States also called 
on the European Commission to make the TAC exemp tion process more efficient and transparent so 
that companies could have definitive answers more  promptly on whether and how the Directive would 
apply to their products.   
26. The representatives of Canada
, China , Japan  and Mexico  shared the US concerns, especially 
those regarding the lack of sufficiently detailed guidance, the non-transparent exemption clauses and 
the functioning of the conformity assessment procedures.  The representative of China was 
particularly concerned about the fact that the European Communities had not set up relevant testing 
methods.  She suggested that the European Commi ssion postpone the enforcement of the Directive 
and provide legally binding technical guidance and tes ting methods so as not to stop trade in electrical 
and electronic equipment with third countries.  The representative of Canada emphasized the need for EC member States to handle enforcement in a c onsistent manner across the European Communities. 
27. The representative of the European Communities
 noted that there had been extensive 
publicity and consultations regard ing the Directive at issue.  Aside from consultations with 
stakeholders and third countries, which had been  taking place since 1997, third countries had had the 
opportunity to express concerns both bilaterally and in  the TBT Committee.  Efforts had been made to 
take these comments into account.  In this respect, the Committee's attention was drawn to a paper on 
Frequently Asked Questions on the RoHS and WEEE Directives.7  It was pointed out that this 
guidance document, which contained detailed explanations on definiti ons, scope and coverage of the 
Directive, would be regularly updated.   
                                                      
7 This paper was made available as a Room Document at the meeting.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 7 
 
 
28. The Committee was informed that the Europ ean Commission would soon adopt a decision 
fixing the maximum concentration values regarding th e RoHS Directive.  In the first draft of the 
proposal the European Commission had proposed a ma ximum concentration value of 0.1 per cent by 
weight, for lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium , and 0.01 per cent by weight for cadmium.   
29. With respect to conformity assessment and testing methods, the representative of the 
European Communities noted that the Directive itse lf did not foresee any compliance procedures or 
testing methods;  it was up to the member States to develop these testing methods and procedures.  In a workshop which had been organized recently by  the European Information & Communications 
Technology Industry Association (EICTA), prelimin ary discussions had been held on the approach 
that member States and industry would take for Ro HS compliance.  The starting point had been the 
assumption that products placed on the market after 1 July 2006 would be RoHS compliant.  The 
producer would thus demonstrate this compliance through a self-declaration (SDoC).  Nevertheless, 
should serious concerns arise about a specific produc t, the Market Surveillance Authorities would test 
it.  Further details about the self-declaration procedur e, as well as testing methods to be used, would 
have to be worked out by member States and w ould be notified to the TBT Committee if appropriate. 
(vii) Malaysia – Hologram Stickers on Pharmaceutical Products (G/TBT/N/MYS/5) 
30. The representative of the European Communities
 welcomed the Malaysian notification 
concerning the use of a hologram security devi ce on medicinal products sold in Malaysia.  
Nevertheless, he recalled that according to Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement, notifications had to 
be made at an appropriately early stage, when  amendments could still be  introduced and comments 
taken into account.  As the European Communiti es would be submitting written comments, Malaysia 
was urged to take these comments into account and, if  necessary, to modify the text which had already 
been adopted at the time of notification.   
31. The representative of the United States  was, like the European Communities, concerned that 
procedures and opportunities foreseen by the TB T Agreement on transparency could have been 
undermined.  While the stated opportunity for comment was 60 days, the regulation, notified 
on 29 April 2005, had entered into force on 1 Ma y 2005.  This called into question Malaysia's 
willingness to consider the comments as required by the TBT Agreement.  Nevertheless, the 
United States remained hopeful that Malaysia w ould give due consideration to the comments it 
received. 
32. The representative of Malaysia  stressed that in the Malaysian notification G/TBTN/MYS/5 
of 29 April 2005, a period of 60 days had been given to all Members for comments.  Malaysian 
authorities would take into consideration all comments received during this period for ongoing 
reviews of this regulation.  Moreover, the date  of implementation of the regulation had been 
postponed twice to take into account such comments. 
(viii) Korea – Import of Fish Heads 
33. The representative of New Zealand  reiterated her delegation's c oncern with regard to fish 
head exports to Korea.  She noted that the Gove rnment of the Republic of Korea had informed her 
authorities that it would continue to prohibit imports of fish heads from New Zealand while, at the same time, allowing imports of edib le fish heads from certain other Member countries.  In bilateral 
discussions with the Republic of Korea, New Zeal and had provided information which supported the 
request that Korea should allow the import of all ed ible fish heads on the same basis that it allowed 
other sea food imports.  New Zealand did not regard th e concerns raised by Korea in relation to the 
import of this product as being legitimate or justifia ble in terms of either GATT Article XI, or the 
relevant provisions of the TBT Agreement. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 8  
 
34. The representative of Norway
 shared the concerns expressed by New Zealand and noted that 
the solution needed to be based on the principles of  national treatment and most favoured nation; i.e., 
according the same treatment to like products irrespective of the source.   
35. The representative of the European Communities  expressed some satisfaction with regard to 
progress made in bilateral discussions.  Both sides had agreed that trade in edib le cod heads needed to 
commence at the earliest opportunity.  She hoped that Korea would soon overcome the remaining 
obstacles so that the arrangement could be concluded without further delay. 
36. The representative of Korea  stressed that while bilateral discussions were still ongoing, 
differences in views remained and it could take some time to reach consensus.   
(ix) European Communities – Restrictions on the Use of Certain Phthalates in Toys 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/82) 
37. The representative of the United States  referred concerns voiced by her delegation at the last 
meeting of the Committee8 and drew Members' attention to G/TBT/N/EEC/82, dated 11 May 2005, 
concerning the proposed amendment to the existing Council Directive (76/769/EEC).  She drew Members' attention to the fact that ther e now existed an opportunity for comment.  
38. The representatives of Japan
 and China  expressed similar concerns to those previously raised 
by the United States.  In their view, the measure ha d the potential to upset international trade.  The 
representative of Japan asked the European Communities to give a rational explanation for the new 
proposal.  The representative of China, while a ppreciating the stated legitimate objective of the 
measure to protect children under three years of ag e, was particularly concerned with the trade 
restrictiveness of the measure. 
39. The representative of the European Communities  stressed that Members had been 
given 60 days (from the date of notification) to submit comments – i.e., until 11 July.  These comments would be given due consideration.  Currently the proposal was under discussion at the 
European Parliament.  In respect of China's con cerns on the trade-restrictiveness of the measure, it 
was noted that new scientific data had become avai lable, and, as a result of risk assessments carried 
out, one group of phthalates had to be classified as a carcinogen, mutagen and reprotoxic.  Due to the 
risk this presented to the health of children it was ne cessary to ban this group of  phthalates in all toys 
and childcare articles.  Moreover, based on the prin ciple of precaution, a second group of phthalates 
needed also to be banned but only in toys and ch ild care articles that could be placed in the mouth by 
children under three years of age,  since these children belonged to weakest and most vulnerable group 
of consumers. 
(x) New Zealand – Ban on the Importation of Trout 
40. The representative of Canada
 reiterated her Government's c oncerns with New Zealand's ban 
on trout imports.  In particular, her government did not consider the ban to be scientifically justified;  
no evidence had been received to this effect.  In  light of this, she expressed disappointment that 
New Zealand had extended the ban for another th ree years, i.e., until November 2007.  While 
New Zealand allowed some access for "personal use", th is was not considered adequate:   Canada was 
seeking commercial access.  She in formed the Committee that in a recent meeting held with 
New Zealand, officials had been tasked with findi ng alternative measures well before the 2007 expiry 
date of the ban.  Canada wished to be inform ed about any progress in identifying such alternative 
measures and New Zealand was again requested  to immediately restore trade in trout. 
                                                      
8 G/TBT/M/35, para. 6.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 9 
 
 
41. The representative of Norway  expressed his delegation's interest in receiving any answers 
provided by New Zealand to Canada. 
42. The representative of New Zealand  noted that her delegation had provided detailed 
background at the November 2004 meeting of the TBT Committee regarding the measure at issue.9  
At that point, it had been explained how the meas ure had arisen from particular concerns over the 
conservation of trout in New Zealand.  She confir med that the order in Council, which prohibited 
importation of trout in commercial quantities into Ne w Zealand, had been extended in October 2004 
to ensure the integrity of the domestic sales prohi bition.  At the time of extending the prohibition 
order, the New Zealand Government had tasked offi cials to report back on alternative measures before 
the expiry of the temporary measure in 2007.  While  New Zealand was not in a position at the current 
meeting to provide information on this work, she ass ured the delegations of Canada and Norway that 
they would be kept up to date on progress.   
(xi) European Communities – Regulation on Certai n Wine Sector Products (G/TBT/N/EEC/15, 
Corr.1-2 and G/TBT/N/EEC/57) 
43. The representatives of Australia , New Zealand , Mexico , United States  and Uruguay  reiterated 
previously raised concerns with respect to EC re gulations on wine labelling.   Although these concerns 
had been expressed over the last three years in th e TBT Committee, these delegations continued to 
seek written responses to the issues raised.  The re presentative of the United States noted that while 
there were ongoing bilateral negotiations with th e European Commission on a wine agreement and a 
labelling protocol, she wished to stress that the outcome of that negotiation would not resolve the 
issues raised in respect of the wine labelling regulations. 
44. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that during the March 2004 
meeting of the TBT Committee, her delegation had responded exhaustively to the questions raised by 
delegations.10 
C. OTHER MATTERS  
1. Mexico - Publication of the national standardization programme (G/TBT/GEN/7/Add.2) 
45. The representative of Mexico  drew the Committee's attention to its national standardization 
programme for 2005.  This information was circulat ed in the TBT Committee  on a regular basis in 
line with Article 2.9.1 of the TBT Agreement.  It set out all information on Mexican official 
standards, i.e., technical regulations, which the pub lic federal administration in Mexico had prepared 
during a given calendar year.  Once drafted, these technical regulations would be notified to the TBT Committee. 
2. Procedures established at the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
46. The representative of the United States
 drew the Committee's attention to efforts made by 
Chile, over a period of eight years within Codex,  to have the common Ch ilean species of sardines 
(Clupea Bentincki ) added to the Codex Standard for Ca nned Sardines and Sardine Type Products.11  
On two occasions (in 1998 and 2000), the Codex Co mmittee on Fish and Fishery Products had found 
that Chile had met the longstanding criteria for th e inclusion of a new species into a Codex Fish 
Standard and had forwarded the amendment to the Codex Commission for final adoption.  However, 
the proposed amendment had been rejected by th e Commission and returned to the Fish Committee 
because of procedural concerns expressed by Morocco and the European Communities that the 
criteria for the procedures themselves needed to be  upgraded.  Subsequently, the Fish Committee had 
                                                      
9 G/TBT/M/34, paras. 104-105.  
10 See the EC statement contained in G/TBT/M/32, paras. 25-28.  
11 The issue was raised by Chile at the last meeti ng of the TBT Committee (G/TBT/M/35, paras. 36-38).  G/TBT/M/36 
Page 10  
 
begun a review of the criteria while, at the same  time, forwarding the amendment to the Commission 
based on consistency with the existing criteria.  The United States delegation to the Codex Fish 
Committee had supported that approach.  However, since then, no consensus had developed on how 
to revise the criteria for inclusion.  M eanwhile, Morocco, supported primarily by the 
European Communities, continued to work against the amendment.  Regrettably, there appeared to be 
various economic and political interests at work.  Morocco was seeking to limit competition and the 
European Communities was using this to argue that  Latin scientific species names should be made 
mandatory on consumer labelling for a range of products. The representative of the United States 
shared Chile's interest in ensuring that Codex ope rated according to its own agreed procedures.  The 
United States was a strong advocate for adopting th e proposed amendment to include the new species 
in the Codex standard and agreed with Chile that it had met with all current Codex Committee 
procedures.   
47. The representative of the United States pointed out  that all WTO Members had an interest in 
ensuring that Codex operated in accordance with its ow n standards and procedures;  this was reflected 
in the TBT Committee's Decision on International Standa rds.  The United States was concerned that it 
appeared that trade, rather than failure to meet an existing technical requirement, was contributing to 
the delay in approving the amendments.  The US dele gation to Codex was willing to continue to work 
with Chile and other like-minded countries and would encourage other WTO Members to do the same.  She urged Codex to expeditiously resolv e the issue in a fair and equitable manner. 
48. The representative of the Codex
 stressed that while there was a procedure for the inclusion of 
species, which was followed in th e Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, Codex procedures also 
foresaw that when an amendment was proposed by a Committee it had also to be adopted by the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission.  At the Codex Commission meeting of 1999, and at the following 
sessions of the Commission, it had become clear that  there was no consensus in the Commission on 
the specific proposal at issue.  While the United States had referred to some Members (Morocco and 
the European Communities) there were a large numb er of other countries which had not agreed on the 
proposal;  the split was, in fact, even between c ountries supporting and those against.  As the Codex 
made every effort to work by consensus, the c ase had been returned to the Committee on Fish and 
Fishery Products. Hence, there were two parallel i ssues involved:  the revision of the procedure for 
inclusion of species (which was ongoing work) and th e adoption of the amendment to the Standard for 
Canned Sardines and Sardine Type Products at the Commission level.  There was also a third issue that had been raised more recently, which was the revision of the labelling pr ovisions in the current 
Standard.  In terms of the issue raised by Chile, th e latest development was that at the last session of 
the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, the item ha d not been discussed due to lack of time.  It 
would be raised again at the next session of the Co mmittee on Fish and Fishery Products, to be held in 
October 2006.  The issue would not be raised at the July 2005 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  
III. TRIENNIAL REVIEW 
A. I
SSUES ARISING FROM THE THIRD TRIENNIAL REVIEW  
1. Good Regulatory Practice 
49. The representative of Canada  considered that, as a follow-up to the Third Triennial Review, 
the Committee still needed to initiate a process of sharing experiences on equivalency, particularly 
with regard to how the concept was implemented in practice.   
  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 11 
 
 
2. Conformity Assessment 
50. The Chairman  recalled that in Paragraph 40 of the Third Triennial Review (G/TBT/13), the 
Committee had agreed on a Work Programme inte nded to improve Members' implementation of 
Articles 5-9 of the Agreement and promote a better understanding of Members' conformity 
assessment systems.   The Committee had made  substantial progress in following-up on this 
Work Programme.   
51. One substantive item left on this Work Progra mme was the organization of a workshop to be 
held on different approaches to conformity assessment results .  The intention was to hold this 
workshop back-to-back with the first meeting of th e TBT Committee in 2006 (probably in March) in 
order to allow for any outcome to feed into the Fourth Triennial Review.  The Chairman reported on 
the informal discussions held on a draft programme from the Secretariat (J OB(05)/108) during which 
several delegations had made comments and propo sals on the draft programme.  These had been duly 
noted by the Secretariat.  He invited Member s and Observers of the TBT Committee to provide 
further comments and to suggest possible speakers,  topics and case studies by Friday 8 July 2005.  
Ahead of the next meeting of the TBT Committee, th e Secretariat would issue a revision of the draft 
programme taking into account such  comments and suggestions made. 
3. Technical Assistance 
52. The Chairman  recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee (22-23 March 2005) the 
Committee had agreed on a course of action to increase transparency in  the identification and 
prioritization of technical assistance  needs.  On the basis of an issues and options paper12 by the 
Chairman, the Committee had agreed on one approach – while keeping other options open – that 
entailed the increasing of transparency through th e development of a mechanism for the voluntary 
notification of specific technical assistance need s and responses.  A draft notification format 
(JOB(05)/93), had been circulated and considered  in informal mode.  Many valuable and useful 
suggestions had been made, all of which had been noted by the Secretariat and would be taken into 
account in the next revision.  The Chairman urge d delegations who wished to make any further 
comments on the draft to communicate these to the Secretariat before 8 July 2005.   
53. Considering the importance given by Members to this issue as well as the mandate from the 
Third Triennial Review on the subject of transparen cy in technical assistance,  the Chairman stressed 
that he regarded the issue as one of priority.  Af ter the revision of the notification format had been 
circulated, he intended to hold consultations with a ll interested Members so as to be in a position to 
have a draft which reflected a wide degree of support for the next meeting of the Committee. 
54. The representative of Canada  recalled that under the recommendation contained in 
paragraph 55,  the Committed had agreed to "Expl ore how the results of the Committee's discussions 
(e.g., on needs identified, lessons learned, gaps in technical assistance activities) could be reflected in 
the WTO's Technical Assistance and Training Plan".  Also, in paragraph 56, the final two bullets 
could be considered:  that the Committee should pr ovide a forum for feedback and assessment of the 
outcomes and effectiveness of technical assistance as  well as consider, based on Members' experience 
of technical assistance received and provided, developing further elements of good practice and technical assistance in the TBT field.   
55. The representative of Egypt
 stressed the importance of considering the fourth bullet of 
paragraph 56 (G/TBT/13). 
 
                                                      
12 JOB(05)/20, 21 February 2005. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 12  
 
4. Other issues arising from the Third Triennial Review 
56. The representative of Canada
 pointed out that if there were some items that could not be dealt 
with in the context of the follow-up of the Th ird Triennial Review, the Committee could consider 
rolling them into the discussions leading up to the Fourth Triennial Review, perhaps as items "not 
addressed" under the previous review.  
57. The representatives of Egypt , European Communities  and Mexico  supported the statement 
made by Canada (in paragraphs 49,  54 and 56, above).  The representative of Mexico suggested that, 
at its next meeting, the Committee could look at th e various elements of the Third Triennial Review 
that had not been given due attention to date.   
58. Considering the comments made, the Chairman  suggested that at the next meeting of the 
Committee, Members would discuss issues resulting fro m the follow-up to the Triennial Review that 
Members felt had not yet  been adequately addressed.  He pointed  out that some of these issues could 
be addressed in preparation of the Fourth Triennial Review.  
B. PREPARATION OF THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW  
59. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting of 4 N ovember 2004, the Committee had endorsed 
a Work Programme for the preparation of the Four th Triennial Review of the Implementation and 
Operation of the TBT Agreement pursuant to Article  15.4 (Annex 1 to this report).  The Committee 
had initiated the review work in March 2005 by beginning the preliminary identification of topics for 
review.  The following eight topi cs had been identified to date by  the United States, China and the 
European Union.  The current meeting would focus on the first three. 
(a) Implementation and administration of the Agreement (US); 
(b) Good regulatory practice (EC, US); 
(c) Transparency (China, EC); 
(d) Conformity assessment procedures (EC, US); 
(e) Technical assistance (China, EC); 
(f) Special and Differential Treatment (China); 
(g) Intellectual property rights issues in standardization (China);  and, 
(h) Labelling (EC).  
1. Implementation and Administration of the Agreement13 
60. The representative of the United States  stressed that Article 15.2 Statements could be seen as 
a "barometer" of Members' compliance with the TBT Agreement.  The submission of such a Statement was required by the Agreement;  it was an initial basic step that in dicated that the Member 
was aware of its obligations and had taken some  action to give them effect domestically.  A 
recommendation had been made in the Third Triennial Review inviting Members to seek assistance from other Members in drafting such a Statement.
14  Some Members had yet to submit this Statement.  
In fact, the existence of – or lack of – such Stat ements could be an indicator of the effectiveness of 
technical assistance efforts.  While the topic pe rhaps did not need any further discussion in the 
Committee, Members needed to rema in conscious of this obligati on.  In terms of information 
exchange, she suggested that the Committee could also consider, when concluding the Fourth 
                                                      
13 Document G/TBT/GEN/1/Rev.2 contains the latest list of Statemen ts of Implementation.  The latest list of Enquiry Points is 
contained in G/TBT/ENQ/26. 
14 G/TBT/13, para. 7.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 13 
 
 
Triennial Review, adding information on notificatio ns of acceptance of the Code of Good Practice – 
which was another basic transparen cy aspect of the Agreement.   
61. The Chairman  reiterated the importance for those Members who had not done so, to submit 
their 15.2 Statements on Implementation.  
2. Good Regulatory Practice15 
62. The representative of the European Communities  introduced his delegation's submission on 
the subject of Good Regulatory Practice (G/TBT/W/254) .  This submission addressed in particular the 
issue of the choice of policy instruments (mandatory  versus voluntary measur es), "better regulation" 
and regulatory cooperation.  In the view of the European Communities, good regulatory practice 
could help prevent unnecessary obstacles to internationa l trade, as well as make sure that legislation 
was not more trade restrictive than necessary.  It was suggested that the Co mmittee further explore the 
meaning of these terms and what they implied in pr actice with a view to, perhaps, limiting the scope 
for their interpretation.  He stressed that while se eking to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade, the right 
to set public policy objectives in relation to leg itimate objectives such as the protection of human 
animal, animal and plant life or health or the environment, had to be maintained.   
63. In respect of policy instruments  for technical regulations, the European Communities noted 
that several Members had made submissions in the NAMA negotiations which contained proposals to 
strengthen the disciplines of TBT Agreement.  These proposals related to measures to increase the 
proportion of technical regulations that were perfo rmance-based rather than based on detailed product 
specifications.  This was indeed in line with the provision contained in Article 2.8 of the TBT Agreement.  Performance-based regulation was more easily adaptable and encouraged 
innovation.  It also reduced the number of legal texts required.  The Eur opean Communities was in 
favour of a discussion on performance-based regulati ons, and felt this was one way to help avoid 
unnecessary obstacles to trade.  For such regulations  the objectives could be more easily understood 
and this could help in the consultation phase prior to their adoption, when the drafts were notified.  In 
light of this, the European Communities suggested that it would be useful for the TBT Committee to 
explore, within the general framework of good regu latory practice, how the use of performance-based 
regulations, where appropriate, could contribute to ensuring that unnecessary obstacles to trade were avoided.  It could also be appropriate, in this context, for the Committee to pursue the question of 
different approaches to technical regulations, which could ultimately lead to recognition of preferred 
regulatory options.  
64. The European Communities also wi shed to address the issue of " better regulation ".  This 
comprised measures taken to simplify existing legisl ation and to enhance the preparatory stages of 
new legislation, as well as to make efforts to reduc e regulatory burdens.  He stressed that the right 
regulatory framework strengthened consumer confid ence and helped contribute to growth.  On the 
other hand, over-regulation or bad re gulation could have a particularly  negative effect on small and 
medium sized (SMEs) enterprises who had limited res ources to deal with red tape.  In fact, regulatory 
bodies needed to question, on a case-by- case basis, whether there was a n eed to regulate at all.  In a 
number of cases – and this was brought out by the Secretariat's paper – there was no need to legislate, and reliance on market-based or voluntary instruments was adequate.  Improving the quality of legislation, through better regul ation, could have a significant positive impact on conditions for 
economic growth, employment and productivity.   
65. The representative of the European Communiti es informed the Committee of "integrated 
impact assessments", which were used on  all major legislative proposals from the 
European Communities.  He noted, furthermore, th at the European Communiti es would, in the near 
future, review their impact assessment methodol ogy and seek advice on whether this could be 
                                                     
 
15 Document JOB(05)/107 contains a Secretaria t background note on Good Regulatory Practice. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 14  
 
improved.  The European Communities was trying to build into the impact assessment a measure of 
administrative burden, which could be a cons iderable cost.  The representative of the 
European Communities encouraged Members to shar e their experiences on better regulation.  He 
suggested that it could be useful for the Committee to have information on what other Members were 
doing in this regard.  The European Communities w ould be pleased to share its own experiences with 
other Members on the New and Global Approaches, wh ich it considered to be a good application of 
the concept "better regulation".
16   
66. The European Communities considered that regulatory cooperation  could be viewed as a part 
of the process of good regulatory practice.  It was usually a voluntary or informal activity where regulators from different countries met on a bilateral basis to exchange information on regulations and 
procedures.  While long-term in nature, in the e xperience of the European Communities, the process 
contributed to avoiding unnecessary obstacles to trad e.  It made sure that measures were not more 
trade-restrictive than necessary and was particularly  useful when applied at an early stage in the 
discussion of regulatory proposals.   
67. In concluding, the representative of the Eur opean Communities stres sed that these three 
elements of good regulatory practice were not the only ones;  there were other elements of good 
regulatory practice.  Take n together with others, these could contribute to addressi ng the fundamental 
issue of avoiding unnecessary barriers to trade.  
68. The representative of Egypt
 asked the representative of the European Communities if he had 
any concrete examples of the use of performance- based regulation compared to ones based on product 
requirements, and whether there existed any statisti cs or other data that showed the difference in 
effect in terms of trade restrictiveness.  Regardi ng impact assessment, Egypt considered this as one of 
the most important elements of good regula tory practice.  He asked whether the 
European Communities – as well as other Memb ers – could share with the Committee the 
methodology that they used fo r conducting such assessments. 
69. The representative of Mexico  noted that the Mexican system for good regulatory practice 
appeared to have many elements in common with th e system described in the EC paper.  Regarding 
impact assessments he noted that, in Mexico, these were required for technical regulations (as well as other legislation) by administrative procedural laws.  In this context it was important to keep in mind 
the link between the rationale of measure and its regul atory impact, and to be able to demonstrate that 
the measure that was being adopted was the least trade -restrictive measure at that time.  In order to do 
this, it was necessary, inter alia , to compare various alternatives to  justify the measure.  It was also 
necessary to examine the technical feas ibility of implementing the measure.  
70. Regarding some specific points in the EC paper,  Mexico was also, in ge neral terms, in favour 
of using performance-based regulations.  There was a need, however, to consider this on a 
case-by-case basis.  For instance, there were regul ations which entailed th e banning of dangerous 
substances and, in such a case, there might not be an available alternative to adopting a restrictive 
measure.   The representative of Mexico asked wh at the European Communities was referring to in 
terms of "different approaches to technical regul ations" (last sentence in paragraph 63 above and 
paragraph 9 of G/TBT/W/254).   Also, Mexico agr eed that it was always important to consider 
whether it was at all necessary to regulate before el aborating a draft regulation.  He asked, in this 
regard, what specific measures related to "better regu lation" had been introduced to achieve this at the 
level of member States.   
71. The representative of Malaysia
 stressed that in order to implement good regulatory practice it 
was necessary to have sufficiently developed in stitutions.  For example, the development and 
implementation of a regulatory impact assessment  required skills and knowledge both at the policy 
                                                      
16 Members were referred to a previous submission by th e European Communities:  G/TBT/W/219, dated 30 June 2003.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 15 
 
 
level and at the regulatory agency level.  Implemen tation of a "new" regulatory system such as the use 
of SDoC required expertise in market surveilla nce and an appropriate legal framework.  While 
Malaysia accepted that the adoption of good regulat ory practice would have positive effects on trade 
facilitation and liberalization, its realization, in practice, would require the development of 
knowledge, skills, and institutions.  The Committee needed  to note this aspect of the debate.  It was 
suggested that developed country Members shoul d give favourable consideration to providing 
technical assistance in this regard. 
72. The representative of Chile  informed the Committee that her authorities had been working on 
this subject at the level of their national TBT co mmittee.  This work had brought together all the 
regulatory officials in the country and one of the key issues that had come out of discussions had been 
the drafting of a Decree that had come into force in  2004.  This Decree dealt with requirements for the 
elaboration, development and a pplication of technical regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures and comprised such aspects as the impact (from a qualitative point of view) on the 
economy and on SMEs.   
73. The representative of the European Communities  noted, regarding Egypt's question, that those 
regulations referred to as the "new approach re gulations" were performance-based because they did 
not contain technical details in the regulations th emselves.  The objectives of the regulations were 
contained in what was called "essential requirement s", and these were simply written statements to 
say, for instance with respect to electrical products, that people should not be harmed by high-voltage current.  That was an example of performance-ba sed regulation.  An example of descriptive-based 
regulation could be found in the automobile sector  as these regulations contained a substantial amount 
of technical information that needed to be upda ted often (because technology changed over time).  
The advantage with performance-based regulations, which did not contain any technical detail, was 
that they remained up to date; it was only the standa rds that were referred to in the performance-based 
regulations that changed.  Regarding methodology for impact assessments, the 
European Communities would provide further information at a subsequent meeting.  
74. Regarding Mexico's question on paragr aph 9, this was a suggestion by the 
European Communities that the Committee go into mo re detail on the basic approaches to technical 
regulations.  While this would entail a large amount  of discussion and information from Members, the 
end result could perhaps be a recognition of "preferred options".  One example of this was the regulatory model adopted by the UNECE where co mmon regulatory objectives were used.  Regarding 
how member States were implementing the policy on better regulation, it was noted that there was an 
ongoing discussion in the European Communities on this  subject.  A key part of what was referred to 
as the "Lisbon Strategy", which was about trying to make the European Communities more competitive, involved not only legislation at the Community level, but also legislation at member State level.  Here the recommendation was that all member States set up national "better regulation strategies", impact assessment syst ems, simplification programmes and supporting 
structures adapted to the national circumstances.   Another point was the need for increased 
collaboration between member States and the EC ser vices.  For example, in Europe there were 
harmonized areas (regulations at the European leve l) and non-harmonized areas.  Hence, first in 
harmonized areas, the Commission was trying to develop a preventative dialogue between EC services and member States aimed at improving timely and correct transposition of directives.  In non-harmonized areas, efforts were being increased to  improve infringement procedures, and also to 
improve the notification of technical regulations at  national level through one of the directives.   
75. The representative of the United States
 said that her delegation intended to table two 
submissions on the topic.  One submission would deal  with domestic procedures in the United States;  G/TBT/M/36 
Page 16  
 
another possible contribution would deal with reacti ons to the EC paper, as well as the discussion in 
the Committee.
17    
76. The representative of the OECD  updated the Committee on its  ongoing work on good 
regulatory practice.  This information is c ontained, in full, in document G/TBT/GEN/19. 
77. The Chairman  concluded that the Committee would re vert to the issue of good regulatory 
practice at its next meeting. 
3. Transparency18 
(i) Submission by Canada on Enhancing Transparen cy for New or Changed Regulations/CA 
Procedures which Arise as a Result of Implementation of a Recommendation of the DSB (G/TBT/W/234, 21 October 2003) 
78. The representative of Canada
 recalled that her delegation's submission, originally from 
October 2003, came about as the result of a TBT dispute settlement case a nd the experience that 
Canada had gained as a third party to that case.  In the case at issue, the DSU had recommended that 
the losing party bring its regulation into conformity  with its obligations under the TBT Agreement.  
The parties had then negotiated a reasonable period of time (RPT) for implementation.  Around the 
mid-way point in the implementation period, the losing party had notified its revised technical 
regulation under the Article 2.9 of the TBT Agre ement and provided a ten-day comment period.  A 
sixty-day comment period had been requested.  The Party responded that it was unable to consider a 
sixty-day comment period as it was limited by the d eadlines imposed by the RPT for implementation.  
The comment period had subsequently been extended by  seven days.  The Party stated that it did not 
consider itself obligated to notify the revised regul ation, but was notifying on a voluntary basis for 
transparency purposes.   
79. In considering this issue, Canada noted that transparency w as an area where the 
TBT Committee had dedicated significant time for discussion and generated significant guidance, 
especially with respect to the articles of the TBT Agreement which focused on obligations related to 
technical regulations, and how they could be effectiv ely implemented.  In fact, Members continued to 
highlight ongoing problems with certain aspects of notifications as well as make useful suggestions.  
It was also clear that Members generally wished to be notified as early as possible of the intentions of 
other Members in the area of new or revised technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures.  Current guidance from the Committee provided for a minimum sixty-day period during which comments could be prepared by other Memb ers and forwarded for the consideration of the 
notifying Member.   
80. The representative of Canada stressed that in the area of the TBT Agreement, and in the case 
of a technical regulation, a Member was required to notify when a relevant international standard did 
not exist, or the content of the proposed technical regulation was not in accordance with the technical 
content of relevant international standards, a nd the proposed technical regulation could have a 
significant effect on trade of other Members.  In th is case, a key issue was the existence of a Codex 
standard, whether the standard was a relevant inte rnational standard and wh ether this standard was 
used by the defending party as a basis for its me asure.  Both the Panel and the Appellate Body 
concluded that the Codex standard was a relevant international standard and it was clear from the 
evidence presented that the existing technical regula tion had a significant effect on the trade of other 
Members.  Thus the only remaining condition to be  met, in order to determine if the proposed 
technical regulation had to be notified, was wh ether the proposed technical regulation was in 
accordance with the content of the relevant interna tional standard.  The Member concluded that its 
                                                     
 
17 Members were referred to a previous submission by the United States:  G/TBT/W/220, dated 30 June 2003. 
18 Document G/TBT/W/250 contains a background note from  the Secretariat on the subject of transparency.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 17 
 
 
proposed technical regulation was in accordance with th e relevant international standard, and that it 
was therefore not required to notify.  It is worth noting that while the Party did notify on what it deemed to be a voluntary  basis, the comment period was so short that it was difficult for other 
Members to provide comprehensive comments.  The brevity of the comment period could also have 
prevented some Members from providing their comments.   
81. In the interest of enhanced transparency, Ca nada proposed that the TBT Committee agree to 
explore the incorporation into its transparency gu idelines of a provision that:  (i) encouraged the 
notification by a Member of a technical regulation or conformity assessment measure which was introduced or revised due to a recommendation in  a report of a panel or Appellate Body and 
subsequent adoption of the report by the DSB;  a nd, (ii) encouraged a Member to take into 
consideration an adequate comment period under such  a notification in the development of an RPT for 
implementation (unless the notifications were legiti mately exempted due to reasons of an urgent 
nature per Articles 2.10 and 5.7).  
82. The representative of th e European Communities
 noted that since Canada had referred to a 
dispute settlement case where the European Communities had been a Party, he simply wished to 
confirm that there had been no obligation under Article 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement to submit a 
notification as the envisaged measure was fully in line with an international standard.  It was recalled 
that there was also the issue of the RPT and that within the DSU there were procedural rules which 
related to transparency.  It was not an easy issu e to determine the relationship between the DSU on the 
one hand and the TBT Agreement on the other.  Nevert heless, this was an issue that could be further 
explored. 
83. The representative of Egypt  recalled that there was already some obligation under the DSU 
about informing other Members about action taken to  bring a measure into conformity with WTO.  
Hence, extending this obligation to also take the fo rm of a TBT notification might not be desirable;  
the question could arise as to how to take into consideration the comments on such a measure where 
the changes made had already been accepted by the parties.   
84. The representative of Brazil  had some concerns regarding Ca nada's proposal as it seemed to 
introduce new obligations concerning the implem entation of recommendations of the DSB and 
subjected Members to demands which were neither set out in the TBT Agreement nor in the provisions of the DSU.  Although Brazil was favourable to measures that promoted transparency in the procedures of the DSB, as well as in other Co mmittees of the WTO, the Canadian proposal could 
create a precedent which would not be appropriate, in  that it entailed the possibility of additional or 
different obligations under other Agreements  being linked to the implementation of the 
recommendations of the DSB.  It was not a good idea  to create linkages between the DSB and other 
WTO Agreements for there could be considerable systemic implications.  In the view of Brazil, the DSU already had mechanisms that ensured transp arency in the process of implementation of the 
decisions of the DSB.   
85. The representative of Argentina
 noted that there was a need  to look at the issue from a 
general, systemic view point without referring to any particular circumstance or case, because each 
case was specific.  It needed to be kept in mind that the issue concerned a technical regulation, 
irrespective of whether it was motivated through a recommendation by the DSB or stemmed from the 
will of the Member that had adopted the regulation.   Moreover, the obligation to notify a technical 
regulation under Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement remained.  In fact, when there was a 
recommendation from the DSB, there was an accumu lation of obligations:  one was to bring the 
inconsistent measure into line with the provisi on to which it ran counter, and the other was the 
obligation to notify (under the TBT Agreement).  There was no other link between the two sets of rules (TBT Agreement and DSU) – it was simply  a natural accumulation of obligations.  The 
Committee needed to be cautious in consider ing the establishment of any guidelines or 
recommendation in this respect. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 18  
 
86. The representative of Canada
 stressed that her authorities ha d considered carefully the issue 
raised by delegations, i.e., the impact on the DSB process, the possibility of creating a precedent, the 
issue of possible systemic implications and the recognition that there was a natural accumulation of obligations.  Canada's conclusion had been that its  proposal would not carry systemic implications. 
(ii) Submission by China on Transparency (Sec tion II of G/TBT/W/252, 8 June 2005) 
87. The representative of China
 introduced the following specifi c proposals on transparency:  
(a) that the interval for taking into account comment s made on notifications be no less than 15 days; 
(b) that notifying Members make sure that the full te xt of the notified documents was always available 
at the national enquiry point, and/or as an alterna tive, provide the URL in the notification form as 
appropriate so that Members could download the full te xt;  (c) that the adopted final text be notified as 
an addendum to the original notification, indicati ng the deviations from the original notification if 
there were any, and providing the URL or link for do wnloading the full text as appropriate;  (d) that 
the TBT Committee use the date of notification as th e date of circulation by the Secretariat, and 
notifying Members allow no less than 60 days for i nviting comments;  (e) that Members share their 
translation of notified documents through their websites or the WTO website; (f) that developed 
Members be encouraged to provide an adaptation pe riod of more than six months; and (g) that the 
Committee continue its discussion on the transparency  issues for the Fourth Triennial Review and 
make recommendations as necessary.  
88. The representative of th e European Communities  noted, in respect of the recommendation 
regarding the availability of notified documents at the national enquiry points (the recommendation in 
paragraph 12(b) of G/TBT/W/252), that the European  Communities also had an  interest in notified 
documents being made available as quickly and as easily as possible for member States who wanted 
to make comments, or to consider  making such comments.  This could be done by referring (linking) 
to a website in the notification form.  Regarding the recommendation (c), while the European Communities was very much in favour of  access to final texts, how this could be done 
needed to be further discussed – an addendum normall y signified an addendum to a draft-notified text.  
The representative of China had also suggested that de viations from the original  notified text could be 
highlighted.  While it was true that this woul d facilitate the task for Members who had made 
comments, in many cases, it could be difficult for the notifying Member to point out every 
modification that had been made to take comme nts into account.  The European Communities also 
supported the recommendation contained in (e) on sharing of translated notified documents.  
Regarding the manner in which the "sixty days" were counted, there appeared to be different 
approaches.  For instance, the European Communities counted sixty days from the day of the 
notification while China counted from the date of circ ulation of the notification;  a common approach 
could indeed be helpful. 
89. The representative of Korea
 supported, in general, China's practical proposals on 
transparency.  He had a minor reservation regard ing the provision of the full text of the notified 
documents.  In his view this could cause t oo much of an administrative burden.   
90. The representative of Japan  asked China about the "15 days" referred to in paragraph 12(a) of 
their submission:  what was the rational for choosing this period of time?  Also, Japan wished to have 
a clarification whether the proposal in (c) was mean t on a voluntary basis.  He also asked what was 
meant by "notified document" – the notification itself or the full text of the notified draft regulation?  
Translations of full texts would be too burdens ome for Japan.  Moreover, the recommendation in (f) 
appeared to run counter to the obligation cont ained in Article 2:12 of the TBT Agreement.  
91. The representative of Egypt  supported China's proposal in full.   He noted, with respect to the 
recommendation contained in paragraph 12(f) that ther e had already been a decision taken in Doha on  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 19 
 
 
this matter.19  Moreover, Article 2:12 made specific reference to developing countries and their 
specific needs. 
92. The representative of China  explained in relation to the "15 days" that the objective had been 
to suggest a minimum period of time for Members to  take comments into account.  With respect to 
paragraph (c), the idea had been to use the same no tification code so as to facilitate identification.  
Regarding (e), the suggestion had been that Members would be encouraged  to share their translations 
of notified documents through their websites, or the WTO website.  By "notified documents" was 
meant the full text of the notified technical re gulations or conformity assessment procedures.  
Regarding the question on (f), this  had been adequately responded to  by the representative of Egypt. 
(iii) Submission by the European Communities on Tr ansparency (G/TBT/W/253, 13 June 2005) 
93. The representative of the European Communities  stressed that transparency was a key issue 
within the TBT Agreement, and there was a need to  continue enhancing its implementation within the 
Agreement's existing framework.  The European  Communities was willing to explore with the 
Secretariat and other Members the feasibility of having a more widespread dissemination of all 
comments made on notified texts, as well as replies to those comments.  He noted that, to date this 
exchange of views had mainly been done on a bilate ral basis.  However, it could be interesting also 
for Members who at first glance might not have iden tified points of concern – or who might not have 
had the possibility to proceed to an in-depth assessment of the notified text – to be made aware of the 
concerns of other  Members.  Therefore, it could be interes ting to explore ways to circulate comments 
so as to enable all Members to have access.   
94. The European Communities reiterated its proposal to find ways to facilitate systematic access 
to final texts of notified proposed technical regul ations or conformity assessment procedures.  
Knowledge of a final, adopted text was key for enterprises:  it informed them about the rules 
applicable to products they intended to place on a gi ven market.  It also allowed Members to verify 
whether eventual comments made had been taken in to account.   Regarding the notification format 
itself, it was suggested that the Committee explor e how to improve the information contained in 
section six of the notification form ("Description of c ontent").  This descripti on needed to allow other 
Members to make a first analysis of the proposed te xt.  Moreover, in order to  facilitate and speed up 
the notification procedure, it could be useful if copi es of the notified text were immediately attached 
to the notification format where such texts were  not publicly available through the Internet.   
95. The representative of Colombia  considered the EC proposal on access to comments to be a 
good way of improving both the application and th e implementation of the Agreement.  This would 
enable far better interaction between enquiry point s, exporters and national producers.  Also, like 
China and the European Communities,  Colombia stressed the importance of access to the final texts.  
She agreed with the importance of maintaining a nomenclature of the texts that would facilitate 
follow-up from the first notification to the final version of the text.  In terms of the timeframe for taking comments into account, it was important that th is not become a "straightjacket";  the number of 
days – such as the fifteen suggested  by China – needed to be discu ssed further.  The suggestion that 
translations should be shared was extremely important , particularly when original texts were not in 
one of the three official WTO languages. 
96. The representative of Japan
 noted, in respect of paragraph 2 of the EC paper (on facilitating 
access to comments) and the suggestion that all comme nts on notifications and subsequent replies be 
communicated to the Secretariat and posted on the WT O TBT website, that it needed to be taken into 
account that some bilateral communications could be of a confidential nature.   
                                                      
19 WT/MIN(01)/17, 20 November 2001, paragraph 5.2. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 20  
 
97. The representative of Mexico
 considered transparency to be one of the most fundamental 
aspects of the implementation of the TBT Agreement.   On a preliminary basis, Mexico considered 
several points set out in the paper to be important.  He noted that, for example in terms of exchanging final texts of technical regulations, this was alread y done in Mexico within the framework of certain 
Free Trade Agreements that Mexico had concluded.   Extending such an exchange to other Members 
of the WTO did not, hence, constitute a problem fo r Mexico – and other trad ing partners could be 
encouraged to do the same thing.  Regarding translations of the regula tions, also Mexico considered it 
essential that there was a mechanism th at would enable Members to be made aware of their existence, 
and take part of them.  He drew the Committee’ s attention to the fact that the SPS Committee had 
already developed a format for the notification of translations of SPS regulations and asked whether 
the Secretariat could look into the progress made in th is area.  Regarding notifications at the local or 
sub-state level of governments (paragraph 5), Mexico too had dawn the attention of delegations to the 
very low number of notifications.  A lot remained to  be done in this area and he encouraged Members 
to comply with their obligation to communicate  to the WTO TBT Committee measures which were 
taken also at sub-federal or sub-state levels.   
98. Another issue to which Mexico attributed significant importance to, and which was not 
reflected in the EC paper, related to Article 2.9. 1 of the TBT Agreement.  This provision obliged 
Members to announce, in the form of publication, and at an early stage, the adoption of any type of 
technical regulation.  Mexico complied with this regulation.
20  However there appeared to be no 
uniformity between Members as to how this noti ce was to be published:  there was neither a 
mechanism in the Committee to ma ke such a notification available to Members, nor was there any 
mechanism to make it known to other Members that such a publication had been made.  Hence this 
provision (Article 2.9.1) had not been implemented in  an effective or appropriate way.  Mexico was 
interested in having a discussion on this subject in the Committee.   
99. The representative of the European Communities  was pleased that Members who had 
commented on their paper seemed, to a large extent, to share their view s – particularly with respect to 
access to final texts.  He acknowledged the reservati on expressed by Japan in this regard which did 
need to be taken into account.  On translati ons, he agreed with Mexico on the need for the 
TBT Committee to consider and further explor e what had been done in the SPS Committee.  
Regarding Mexico's last point, on Article 2.9.1, it would be useful for the Committee to exchange 
experiences on how Members implemented this pr ovision.  For instance, in the European 
Communities, there was in general, at a very ear ly stage, a public consultation process on envisaged 
measures where all stakeholders could comment.  
4. Intellectual Property Rights and Standardization 
(i) Submission by China (G/TBT/W/251, 25 May 2005) 
100. The representative of China  recalled that the TBT Agreement highlighted the importance of 
international standards in furthering the objectiv e of GATT 1994 and encouraged Members to adopt 
international standards to facilitate  international trade.  Consideri ng this, it was necessary to ensure 
the quality and efficiency of such standards.  More precisely – there was a need, in standards 
preparation, to treat appropriately the relations hip between standards and technologies covered by 
IPRs.  To do this, international standard-setti ng bodies had established policies concerning IPRs in 
standardization which encouraged IPR holders to  declare their acceptance of the RAND principle.21  
However, many issues could not be solved efficiently by their polici es.  For example, standardization 
bodies had declared that they would be responsible  for concerned information about essential IPRs to 
be integrated into standards.  Also, there needed to be more  concrete measures to encourage 
concerned parties to disclose related information.   Interpretations of the RAND principles were 
                                                      
20 Reference was made to Mexico’s yearly communication to th e TBT Committee of its National Standardization Programme, the 
latest of which is contained in  G/TBT/GEN/7/Add.2 (24 May 2005).  
21 This is explained in G/TBT/W/251, para. 3.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 21 
 
 
inconsistent and therefore it was often difficu lt to achieve consensus among IPR holders and 
applicants, which increased uncertainty of  international standard adoption.   
101. The representative of China stressed that this  issue had, already, not only sabotaged the 
efficiency and quality of international standards,  but also hampered Members' adoption of such 
standards.  China was hence of the view that it was necessary to ensure that IPR issues in the 
preparation and adoption of inte rnational standards did not become an obstacle for Members in 
adopting such standards.  The WTO needed to co nsider the negative impacts of IPR issues in 
standardization;  there was a need to explore appr opriate trade policies to resolve difficulties arising 
from this issue.  As the TBT Agreement encouraged  Members to adopt international standards, the 
TBT Agreement was relevant.  China proposed th at the TBT Committee take advantage of the 
Triennial Review discussion to fully address this issue.   
102. The representative of Brazil  noted that the Chinese proposal could benefit from further 
clarification regarding its scope and some of the concepts it addressed.  For instance, what were the 
existing provisions that were relevant to patent righ ts in international standardization organizations?  
What constituted the reasonable and non-discriminatory principle "RAND" whose adoption was 
recommended by such organizations?  Also, w as the Chinese Government proposing modalities for 
the negotiation of provisions that would prevent intellectual property rights from becoming barriers to access of international technical standards?  The representative of Brazil stressed that her delegation 
supported the idea that patent rights should not co nstitute an obstacle to development objectives – 
and, in the case of the TBT Committee, should not become an impediment to Member countries gaining access to international technical standa rds in line with the stated objectives of the 
TBT Agreement.  In this regard, she welcomed further elaboration by China on its proposal that 
would support a more in-depth debate in the TBT Committee. 
103. The representative of Mexico
 asked the representative of China to explain in greater detail the 
nature of the problem that their proposal s ought to address, and what was expected from the 
TBT Committee.  It was not clear to his delegation to what extent the TBT Committee could provide a 
solution, or even the WTO.  He also asked whethe r the international standard-setting bodies would be 
in a position to provide the Committee with mo re information on this particular subject. 
104. The representative of Canada  associated herself with the comments made by Brazil and 
Mexico with respect to seeking further elaborati on of the proposal by China.  One question was 
whether China had considered – or was planning to – raise this issue in the relevant standardization 
bodies or, for example, in other fora, such as the TRIPS Council?  It woul d be important for the 
Chinese delegation in any further elaboration, to speci fically elaborate and give examples in respect of 
its comment to the effect that IPR issues in the pr eparation and adoption of in ternational standards had 
become "an obstacle for Members to adopt internatio nal standards and facilitate international trade."22 
105. The representative of the IEC  drew the Committee's attention to the 2004 ISO/IEC Directives, 
Part 1, Section 2.14 which had a clear reference to patented items.  The relevant clause set out the way 
in which patents were dealt with in the interna tional standards-setting process as set out by ISO and 
the IEC.   
106. The representative of China  noted the comments and would revert to these at a later stage. 
5. Technical Assistance 
(i) Submission by China (Section III of G/TBT/W/252, 8 June 2005) 
107. The representative of China  introduced his delegation's proposal (G/TBT/W/252). 
                                                      
22 G/TBT/W/251, para. 6. G/TBT/M/36 
Page 22  
 
108. The representative of the European Communities
 recalled that transparency in technical 
assistance was an important objective.  In fact, his delegation had every year for the past four years 
been providing the TBT Committee with information on technical assistance projects.  This was not 
an easy task as technical assistance was pr ovided in a decentralized fashion in the 
European Communities.  Regarding China's suggesti on in paragraph 19(a), it was noted that this was 
relevant to the Committee's discussion in the co ntext of the development of the draft voluntary 
notification format;  it was important not to duplicate these efforts and, in developing the form, China's concerns could be taken into account (paragraph 52, above). 
109. The representative of Canada
 agreed with the point made by the European Communities in 
respect of paragraph 19(a).  Moreove r, paragraph 19(b) of China's s ubmission could also be relevant 
to the work on the information coordination mechan ism (transparency in technical assistance).  This 
was about the TBT webpage and the possibility of  including information on finished or ongoing 
technical assistance projects.  It was perhaps possibl e to make information that was notified, through 
the format being developed (on specific technical a ssistance needs), available on the webpage so as to 
flag it to Members in a more timely manner than was done on the WTO/OECD Database.  
110. The representative of the United States  asked what was meant by the suggestion that the 
Committee and the Secretariat annually prioritize co mmon or urgent needs in its training programmes 
or seminars.  She recalled that in the last Review , Members had recognized the limitations of both the 
Committee and the Secretariat in terms of the type of assistance that could be provided.23  S h e  
questioned what else needed to be done so as to pr ioritize training, considering that much of the 
technical assistance was Member-driven and the seminars that had been given were guided by the 
discussions in the Committee.  Regarding provision of information to the Committee by Members, the 
representative of the United States noted that th ey themselves had considerable difficulties in 
providing information on US technical assistance.  This was not because such assistance was not provided, but because it was not available in a centralized format.   
111. The representative of China
 agreed that detailed information mentioned under 
paragraph 19(a) could be taken in to account in the draft voluntary notification format previously 
discussed.  Regarding paragraph 19(d), on the sugg estion that the Secretariat and the Committee 
annually prioritize addressing certain common or ur gent needs by providing training courses or 
holding seminars,  China was of the view that sometimes there was a need to provide technical 
assistance on an urgent basis and therefore it was important to prioritize.   
6. Special and Differential Treatment 
(i) Submission by China (Section IV of G/TBT/W/252, 8 June 2005) 
112. The representative of China  introduced his delegation's proposal (G/TBT/W/252). 
113. The representative of the United States  noted that, similarly to the case of technical 
assistance, there was likely to be difficulties in ascer taining and providing information on special and 
differential treatment.  In this respect, she asked Ch ina to provide more information on the type and 
content of information it expected from developed Members. 
114. The representative of China  believed that it was necessary to further discuss the 
implementation of Article 12 of the TBT Agreem ent;  China's proposal was primarily aimed at 
"starting the ball rolling". 
115. In concluding, and in line with the agreed Wo rk Programme for the Fourth Triennial Review 
(Annex 1 to this report), the Chairman  suggested that the Committee take up the following topics at 
                                                      
23 G/TBT/13, para. 57.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 23 
 
 
its next meeting:  (i) conformity assessment pro cedures, (ii) technical assistance, (iii) special and 
differential treatment, (iv) intellectual property ri ghts and standardization, and (v) labelling.  The 
Committee would also revert to good regulatory practice, as well as any other topic delegations wished to address.  He invited the Members to submit papers on the above-mentioned subjects 
by 14 October 2005.  The Secretariat would circulate background notes on conformity assessment 
procedures and special and differential treatment.  It was so agreed
. 
IV. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION 
116. The representative of the European Communities  drew the Committee's attention to a study 
report which was entitled: "Development of trade in  Africa: promoting exports through quality and 
product safety."  He noted that this report had been commissioned by the Norwegian Agency for 
Development Cooperation (Norad), and the Swedis h International Development Cooperation Agency 
(Sida).  The report addressed a number of issues re levant to both the SPS and TBT Agreements and 
could be of interest to Members (copies we re available from the Swedish delegation).  
117. The representative of the IEC  updated the Committee on technical assistance activities and 
efforts by the IEC to increase the participati on of developing countries in international 
electro-technical standardization.  The full report is available separately in G/TBT/GEN/20. 
118. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the Secretariat's technical assistance 
activities in 2005 contained in document G/TBT/GEN/21. 
V. OBSERVERS 
A. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS  
119. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to  document G/TBT/GEN/2, circulated 
on 4 March 2004, which set out the situation with  respect to observership by inter-governmental 
organizations in the TBT Committee.  There were still four organizations whose requests for observer 
status were pending:  the Office International de la Vigne et du Vin  (OIV), the Bureau International 
des Poids et Mesures  (BIPM), the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting (GOIC) and the 
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  It was his understanding that differences remained 
among Members at a horizontal level and therefor e suggested postponing consideration of these 
requests pending further consultations on the issue of Observership at the General Council level.   
B. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS  
120. The representative of the Codex  updated the Committee on relevant ongoing work.  This 
report is contained in G/TBT/GEN/22.  The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to 
G/TBT/GEN/23 which sets out issues of interest arising from the work of the OIML. 
VI. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 
121. The Chairman  announced that the next regular meet ing of the Committee would take place 
on 2-3 November 2005.   
 
 
 G/TBT/M/36 
Page 24  
 
ANNEX 1: WORK PROGRAMME FOR THE FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW 
 
122. Article 15.4 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) provides 
that:  "Not later than the end of the third year fro m the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement 
and at the end of each three-year period thereaf ter, the Committee shall review the operation and 
implementation of this Agreement, including the prov isions relating to transparency, with a view to 
recommending an adjustment of the rights and obli gations of the Agreement where necessary to 
ensure mutual economic advantage and balance of rights and obligations, without prejudice to the 
provisions of Article 12.  Having regard, inter alia,  to the experience gained in the implementation of 
the Agreement, the Committee shall, where appropria te, submit proposals for amendments to the text 
of this Agreement to the Council for Trade in Goods". 
123. The Committee concluded the First, Second and Third Triennial Reviews of the Operation 
and Implementation of the TBT Agreement on 13 November 1997 (G/TBT/5), 10 November 2000 
(G/TBT/9) and 7 November 2003 (G/TBT/13), respectiv ely.  In light of the mandate quoted above, 
the aim is to conclude the Fourth Triennial Re view at the Committee's last meeting in 2006. 
124. Article 15.4 states that the Committee shall at the end of each three-year period undertake the 
review work.  In order to prepare for this review work and to ensure efficiency, the work programme 
(overleaf) sets out three stages:  identification, discussion and drafting.  In essence, this approach 
means that, by mid-cycle (June 2005), the Committee would shift its focus from the follow-up of the 
Third Triennial Review to the preparation of the Fourth.   
125. Three formal meetings of the TBT Committee have been scheduled for 2005 and another 
three are foreseen to be held in 2006.   
126. It is proposed that the review work be initiate d at the First meeting in 2005 with a preliminary 
identification of topics for review.  It is stressed that this list will be preliminary and that Members 
would be able to add to or modify it during th e discussion phase of the review work.  At its Second 
and Third meetings in 2005, it is proposed that the Committee hold focused discussions on topics that 
have been identified.  Members will be encourag ed to submit papers on the issues identified for 
consideration.  To facilitate the discussion, the Secretariat will prepare factual background notes on 
specific topics under discussion.   
127. At its First meeting in 2006, the Committee s hould be in a position to take stock of the 
discussions.  To assist the Committee in this stoc ktaking exercise, the Secretariat will prepare a 
summary of the key issues discussed, under each topic iden tified.  This draft will be factual in nature 
and will not contain any recommendations.  
128. The Second meeting in 2006 will mark the start of the drafting phase.  For that meeting, the 
Committee will have before it a first draft of the Fourth Triennial Review, including both the factual 
elements and any recommendations on which there is general agreement.   
129. In respect of the conduct of the review work it self, it is proposed that substantive discussions 
pertaining to the review will normally be held in formal mode under an agenda item dedicated to the 
review process (currently Agenda Item 3 "Triennial  Review").  After circulation and discussion of the 
first draft of the Fourth Triennial Review, incl uding both the factual part and any recommendations on 
which there is general agreement, necessary drafting will take place in open-e nded informal meetings.  
These meetings will, to the extent possible, be held  back-to-back with the regular meetings of the 
Committee.  The Chairman will subsequently re port on the results in the formal meeting. 
130. The Committee to adopt the final text of the Fourth Triennial Review at its Third meeting 
in 2006.  G/TBT/M/36 
 Page 25 
 
 
131. The work programme should be seen as flexible  and may be modified in light of any new 
developments.   
Work Programme for the Fourth Triennial Review  
Dates / Time Frame Proposed Action 
Identification phase  
mid-February 2005 Preliminary identificati on of topics for review by delegations 
First meeting in 2005 Listing of topics and organization of discussion 
 
Discussion phase  
end-April 2005 Circulation of S ecretariat note on topics to be discussed at the next 
meeting 
mid-May 2005 Submissions by dele gations on topics to be di scussed at the next meeting 
Second meeting in 2005 Discussion on topics identified 
mid-September 2005 Circulation of  Secretariat note on topics to  be discussed at the next 
meeting 
mid-October 2005 Submissions by de legations on topics to be di scussed at the next meeting  
Third meeting in 2005 Discussion on topics identified 
end-January 2006 Submission by delegati ons of proposals for recommendations  
end-February 2006 Circulation by the Secretariat of draft of factual elements of the review  
First meeting in 2006  Stocktaking:   
Discussion of draft of factual elements of the review as well as any 
proposed recommendations. 
 
Drafting phase  
mid-June 2006 Circulation of first draft text of the Fourth Triennial Review, including 
both the factual part and any recomme ndations on which there is general 
agreement 
Second meeting in 2006 Discussion of draft text of the Fourth Triennial Review 
mid-September 2006 Circulation of the draft fi nal text of the Four th Triennial Review 
Third meeting in 2006 Adoption of the final text of the Fourth Triennial Review 
 
 
 
__________