08-0918 JOB(08)/9  28 February 2008 
 
Negotiating Group on Market Access  
 
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
 
Proposed Decision on Non Tariff Barriers Affecting Fo restry Products Used in Building Construction:  
Question and Answer Paper  
 
Communication from New Zealand 
  
The following communication, dated 27 February 2008, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of New Zealand. 
_______________ 
 
 
 A number of Members asked questions about the proposal during informal consultations 
convened by the Chairman in late 2007.  It was suggested that a Question and Answer document may 
help Members better understand the i ssues and engage their relevant domestic authorities with a view 
to increasing the level of comfort with this propo sal.  This paper responds to that suggestion.   
 
I. THE PROBLEM 
 Non-tariff barriers can be created by building codes, the underlying standards that are cited in 
building codes, and the associate d testing and conformity assessment procedures.  These requirements 
can also, collectively, discriminate against the use of wood in building construction.  
 
Building codes describe how buildings are to be constructed.  With respect to wood products, 
they define which products may be used in certai n applications.  (For example, what wood products 
can be used to make a window-frame.)  If a building code cites internationally  agreed standards and 
associated testing and conformity assessment procedur es to define the products that may be used, the 
domestic market may be more readily accessible to a range of exporters whose products comply with 
such international standards.  If a building codes c ites only domestic standards, it may be more costly 
(or even impossible) for producers based in  other countries to access that market.  
 
Historically building codes have tended to be  what are described as “prescriptive” building 
codes, so called because they prescribe how the assembly  is to be carried out, the materials that may 
be used, how they are to be joined together, and so on.  The main draw-b ack to prescriptive building 
codes is that they tend to lock in the practice at the time they were written and do not allow the use of 
innovative new techniques and materials.  Pertinen t to the use of timber in construction is the 
tendency for prescriptive codes to include lists of timber types that may be used.  Such lists 
effectively prohibit the use of a timber that is not  on the list, even if it would be as good as or better 
than timbers that are on the list. 
 
It was because prescriptive building codes were  seen as holding back the progress of the 
building industry that the alternative “performan ce-based“ building codes were developed in countries 
like New Zealand, the UK, some Scandinavian countries and Australia.  These codes state what performances the elements of a building must me et, but leave it open to the designer to select a 
method for achieving that performance.   For example the required performance might be that a beam 
over a window opening (the lintel) is not to bend to o far under the load it carries from above.  It is 
open to the designer to select a ti mber type and size that will achie ve that performance, so long as the 
approving authority is convinced on reasonable grou nds that the proposal will work.  The reasonable JOB(08)/9 
Page 2  
 
  grounds might be provided by test results, complian ce with an appropriate Standard, or engineering 
calculations.  
 In relation to timber building products, trade barriers can arise out of technical regulations, 
standards and conformity assessment procedures in a number of ways, including the following: 
 A. D
IFFERING REQUIREMENTS CAN LE AD TO MARKET SEGMENTATION  
 Differences in the standards cited in national building codes can impede trade by narrowing 
the range of markets in which a particular product ca n be sold, regardless of the quality or desirability 
of the product.  B. R
ELIANCE ON GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF CONFORMI TY ASSESSMENT BODIES CAN ADD COSTS  
 When a country only allows its own conformity assessment bodies to provide accreditation 
for a particular inspection, measurement or testing facility, exporters have to send their product to the 
country in question in order for it to be tested. Th is can mean that the costs of imported products can 
be greatly increased, even to the point of arbitrary exclusion of some products.  C. D
UPLICATIVE TESTING REQUIREMENTS CAN ADD COSTS  
 An important aspect of testing is which test methods are used, and whether the results from 
the chosen test method can be meaningfully compar ed with the results of other tests.  In some 
situations, results from tests methods accepted in the exporting country are not recognised in the importing country unless the product is retested, wh ich if often unnecessary and can be prohibitively 
expensive.  II. HOW THIS PROPOSAL WILL ADDRESS THE PROBLEM 
 This proposal attempts to address the issues mentioned above by:  
 (a) Requiring Members to give “primary considera tion” to adoption of international standards 
when they are revising or updating their building codes (paragraph 1). The proposal would 
encourage, but not require,
 increased uptake of international standards. Having more 
international standards cited in building codes would lessen the potential for market 
segmentation that differing standards can lead to. 
(b) Requiring Members whose domestic accreditation agencies are already signatories to ILAC 
mutual recognition arrangements or IAF mu ltilateral arrangements to recognise those 
arrangements would make use of existing a rrangements to help address the problem of 
duplicative testing requirements (paragraph 5).  Increased ILAC/IAF membership (paragraph 6) would also help to deal with th is problem by widening the number of agencies 
able to be involved in such arrangements. 
(c) Establishing an internationally agreed list of  accepted test and certification methods for 
timber products used in relation to building cod es (paragraph 7) would also help to address 
the issue of duplicative testing requirements.  The test/certification methods on the list would 
be accepted by all Members as meeting their domestic requirements, thus establishing equivalence of standards on a global scale.   
 JOB(08)/9 
Page 3 
 
 
   A number of questions have been raised by  delegations, especially during the week of 
29 October 2007.  The remainder of this document attempt to address those questions. 
 
1. What is the relationship between this pr oposal and the TBT Agreement, especially 
Articles 2.4 and 5.4? 
 This proposal designed to add specificity to the TBT Agreement in relation to certain 
products in a certain sector (timber building products in the forestry sector).    The proposal does not attempt to override the TBT Agreement.  Member’s rights and 
obligations under the TBT Agreement are recognised by the proposal in the preamble paragraph 4. 
 
 More specifically, the right that Members currently have under Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement (broadly, the right to opt not to adopt in ternational standards because of e.g. fundamental 
climatic or geographical factors) is not overridden. The proposal does not introduce a compulsion to adopt international standards, and nor does it ban th e use or adoption of standards other than those 
developed by internati onal standardising bodies. 
  Similarly, the proposal does not affect Member’s rights under Article 5.4 of the TBT Agreement. Where international standardising bodi es’ guides and recommendations are inappropriate 
for, inter alia , such reasons as are listed in Article 5.4 of the TBT Agreement, this proposal does not 
require their use.  
 
2. How would the ISO – TBT Committee consultation work? 
 New Zealand considers that the details of how, and how often, these c onsultations would take 
place would be best decided by the TBT Comm ittee and the technical committees themselves. 
 
 Currently, the Director General of ISO presen ts an annual report to the TBT Committee; the 
two bodies are already in contact with each other.  This proposal would increase that contact by 
inviting representatives of the standards comm ittees and subcommittees themselves to make 
presentations on timber building standards to the TBT Committee.     New Zealand envisages that such presentations  could involve explana tions of how existing 
and new performance-based standard s could be applied in a way which would minimise barriers to 
trade.  However, the groups may find in practice that  other means are more effective, so the proposal 
does not attempt to prescribe these consultations.  
3. Would the list of test and certification me thods be mandatory? What would be its legal 
standing? Would it be worth the effort? 
 The list of test and certification methods for timb er products where they are used in relation to 
building codes (paragraph 7) would, by definition, co nsist of test and certification methods that were 
"internationally accepted".  The list would be creat ed and updated by the "internationally recognised 
group of timber experts" which w ould consist of experts nominated by Members.  It would be 
mandatory for WTO Members to accept them as equivalent to their own test and certification 
methods.  This would not necessarily mean that Members’ national test and certification methods 
would be replaced. The equivalence between the na tional and international test and certification 
methods would be established under the authority of this Decision.   While it would be desirable, it is not expected that the list would cover all test and 
certification methods in relation to all timber products  used in construction.   But New Zealand does 
believe that Members could agree on the equivalen ce of international test and certification methods JOB(08)/9 
Page 4  
 
  with their own domestic test and certification methods in at least some key areas.  Global equivalence, 
even on just a few test and certification methods, would still be a step in the right direction.    
4. How would the group of experts be formed ? Where would their authority come from? 
Where would they be based?  
 New Zealand considers it appropriate that the group would form under the TBT Committee. 
  The authority for the group would come from the Decision itself, and it could meet wherever that would be convenient.  These issues should be dealt with by the group itself rather than in this 
proposal. 
 
 The proposal mentions biannual notifi cations from WTO Members of additional 
internationally accepted test and certification methods .  A logical idea would be for these notifications 
to come from the TBT Committee, although  other options could be considered. 
 5. Indicative HS list 
 Some Members have requested a definitive list of tariff lines that the proposal would apply to. 
As the proposal is about standards and confor mity assessment procedures referenced in building 
codes, it can affect both the timber build ing products and the raw material wood. 
  New Zealand envisages that products affected by the proposal, therefore, would cover the 
following indicative list of HS2002 four-digit tariff lines: 
 
• 4403: Wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, or roughly 
squared. 
 
• 4407: Wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, 
sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness exceeding 6 mm. 
 
• 4409: Wood (including strips and friezes  for parquet flooring, not assembled) 
continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, re bated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, 
moulded, rounded or the like) along any of its  edges, ends or faces, whether or not 
planed, sanded or end-jointed. 
 
• 4410: Particle board, oriented strand board  (OSB) and similar board (for example, 
wafer board) of wood or other ligneous materials, whether or not agglomerated with 
resins or other organic binding substances. 
 
• 4411: Fibreboard of wood or other ligneous  materials, whether or not bonded with 
resins or other organic substances. 
 
• 4412: Plywood, veneered panels  and similar laminated wood. 
 
• 4413: Densified wood, in blocks, plates, strips or profile shapes. 
 
• 4418: Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and 
assembled flooring panels; shingles and shakes. 
 
• 9604: Prefabricated buildings. JOB(08)/9 
Page 5 
 
 
  6. Why are these specific ISO committees recognised in the proposal? 
 ISO TC 89, 165 and 218 were the committees that were recommended by a diverse group of 
technical experts at a meeting in New Zealand in  October 2005, as prominent and appropriate bodies 
which are developing international performance-base d standards in respect of the forest products 
sector. 
 
 The named technical committees’ respective domains are elaborated below:   
• TC89 – Wood Based Panels.  Standardisation in the field of wood-based panels such 
as fibreboards, particle boards and plywood, including terminology, test methods and 
quality requirements 
 
• TC 165 – Timber Structures.  Standardisati on concerning structural applications of 
timber, wood-based panels, other wood-based  products and related lignocellulosic 
fibrous materials including: requirements for design; structural properties, performance, and design values of materials, products, components, and assemblies; and test methods and requirements to estab lish related structural, mechanical and 
physical properties and performance. 
 
• TC 218 – Timber. Standardisation of round , sawn and processed lumber, and timber 
materials in and for use in all applications, including terminology, specifications and test methods. 
  
__________