RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/M/41 
12 June 2007 
 (07-2448) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 21 MARCH 2007  
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Margers Krams (Latvia)
 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
   
I.     ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.............................................................................................2  
II. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRA TION OF THE AGREEMENT ....................2  
A. 
STATEMENTS  FROM  MEMBERS  UNDER  ARTICLE  15.2...........................................................2 
B. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS .........................................................................................................2 
1. New Concerns ................................................................................................................... ......2  
2. Previously Rai sed Concern.....................................................................................................5  
C. EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCES .....................................................................................................16 
1. Good Regulatory Practice ....................................................................................................16  
2. Conformity Assessment Procedures......................................................................................17  
3. Transparency ................................................................................................................... .....17  
4. Technical Assistance........................................................................................................... ..19 
5. Special and Differential Treatment.......................................................................................20  
D. O THER MATTERS ......................................................................................................................20 
III. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATI ON ACTIVITIES .................................................................21  
IV. TWELFTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF:...................................................................................21  
A. THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.3.........21 
B. T HE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE (ANNEX 3)...............................................................................21 
V.     UPDATING BY OBSERVERS..............................................................................................21  
VI. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON ........................................................................................21  
VII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING.................................................................................................21  
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. G/TBT/M/41 
Page 2  
 
   
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/2968.   
II. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
A. STATEMENTS  FROM  MEMBERS  UNDER  ARTICLE  15.2 
2. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to a list  of Statements made under Article 15.2 
of the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/GEN/1/Rev.5).  It was noted that during 2006, Qatar2, Bangladesh3, 
Saudi Arabia4, Fiji5, Paraguay6 and Guinea Bissau7 had submitted their statements.  Also, Brazil8, 
Bulgaria9, Chile10, the European Communities11, Moldova12, Papua New Guinea13 and Uganda14 had 
submitted revisions to their statements.  This meant that since 1995, a total of 109  Members had 
submitted at least one Statement on im plementation under Article 15.2.   
3. The Chairman recalled that the latest list of  Members' Enquiry Points was contained in 
document G/TBT/ENQ/29.   
B. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
1. New Concerns 
(i) China –  Unified charges for telecom terminals 
4. The representative of the European Communities  expressed concern about a possible future 
requirement on all new type approvals of telecom te rminals.  The European Communities asked for an 
update on the status of the recently adopted Chin ese standard for unified charges and asked, in 
particular, whether compliance with the standard would be mandatory or not.  
5. The representative of China  took note of the concern.  
(ii) Brazil – Mandatory certification of batteries 
6. The representative of the European Communities  expressed concern about a public 
consultation launched by the Brazilian regulator y agency for telecommunications, Anatel, on 
mandatory certification for mobile phone batteries.  He  noted that this consultation had been held in 
the fall of 2006 and requested the Brazilian delegation to give an update of the state of play of the 
issue.   What had the results been of the public consultation? Was the regulatory agency pursuing the 
plan to introduce mandatory certification for ba tteries?  It was the EC understanding that the 
                                                      
2 G/TBT/2/Add.87 
3 G/TBT/2/Add.88 
4 G/TBT/2/Add.89 
5 G/TBT/2/Add.90 
6 G/TBT/2/Add.91 
7 G/TBT/2/Add.92 
8 G/TBT/2/Add.26/Rev.2/Suppl.2 
9 G/TBT/2/Add.32/Rev.3 
10 G/TBT/2/Add.16/Rev.1 
11 G/TBT/2/Add.12/Rev.3/Suppl.1 
12 G/TBT/2/Add.68/Suppl.1 
13 G/TBT/2/Add.77/Rev.1 
14 G/TBT/2/Add.23/Suppl.1  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 3 
 
 
  background of this issue was the explosion of some  mobile phone batteries during use.  As exploding 
batteries were caused by use of non-original batteri es, the mandatory certification requirement would 
constitute a significant barrier to trade whic h would not add value to the consumer.  
7. The representative of Brazil  took note of the concern.  
(iii) Philippines - Ceramic wall and floor tiles (G/TBT/N/PHL/77) 
8. The representative of the European Communities  drew the Committee's attention to the link 
between the above-mentioned notification and two othe r Philippines notifications raised previously in 
the TBT Committee (PHL/60 and 63).  After examinati on, the newly notified draft standard (standard 
154/2007) had been considered as practically identical  with the standard of 2005.  The international 
standard ISO 13006 had not been take n into account as stated in the foreword and the notification was 
therefore not in compliance with Article 2.4 of  the TBT Agreement. The European Commission 
invited the Philippine authorities to engage in a constructive discussion with the EC authorities in 
order to avoid the adoption of technical regulations  which would be more restrictive than necessary. 
9. The representative of the Philippines  took note of the points raised and informed the 
Committee that the deadline for th e comments was 7 April 2007.  
(iv) China - Requirements for Concentration Li mits for Certain Hazardous Substances in 
Electronic Information 
10. The representative of Japan  referred to an announcement made by China on 
14 November 2006 regarding three sectoral standa rds based on the above-mentioned regulation. 
China was requested to notify th ese standards to the WTO, in line with Article 2.9 of the TBT 
Agreement.   
11. The representative of China  informed the Committee that the Chinese Ministry of Information 
Industry had issued a standard entitled Requirement s for Concentration Limits for Certain Hazardous 
Substances in Electronic Information Products on 7 November 2006. This involved three standards: 
marking for control of pollution; cost of electr onic information products; and testing methods for 
hazardous substances in electronic informati on products.  As these standards were not mandatory 
(they were industrial recommended standards), China di d not consider that there was an obligation to 
notify them under the TBT Agreement. 
(v) Korea – Safety criteria for various products (G/TBT/N/KOR/127) 
12. The representative of the European Communities  was concerned about a proposal from Korea 
regarding safety criteria on 47 different product, in pa rticular with respect to proposed requirements 
on tires and safety glass for road vehicles. The Eu ropean Communities inform ed the Committee that 
Korea was a signatory party to the UNECE Ag reement of 1958 and that the UNECE regulation 
Number 43 was about safety glass and the regulation Number 30 concerned tires.  These two UNECE regulations were consid ered to be international sta ndards, and, therefore, in line with Article 2.4 of the 
TBT Agreement, Korea was invited to adopt a speci fication of those standards instead of adopting 
specifications which were purely of national origin.  
13. The representative of Korea
 informed the Committee that  the Korean government had 
adopted an ISO standard and was, hence, in comp liance with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.  G/TBT/M/41 
Page 4  
 
  (vi) Thailand – Labelling Requirement for Snack Foods (G/TBT/THA/215) 
14. The representative of the United States
 expressed concern about the above-mentioned 
notification from Thailand in October 2006 to wh ich the United States had submitted questions that 
had not been clarified.  In particular, the Unite d States did not have a clear understanding of the 
criteria used to add or remove foods to or from Thailand's list of applicable foods, and the reasons 
why some categories had been included and othe rs not – as was the case for ice cream. The 
representative of the United States also inquired about  the scientific basis for the ranges set forth in 
the proposal for colour grades and whether there was any consumer data showing that consumers 
would not be mislead by this information on the la belling. She was concerned that the food on the list 
would be "demonized" whereas this food could be part  of a healthy diet if eaten with moderation. 
Moreover, the United States also questioned the merits  of putting colour codes on the label as colour 
grading for the same food could change based on package size – an inconsistency that could be 
confusing to the consumer.  It was the US understandi ng that the regulation was currently not in force. 
15. The representative of Thailand  noted the concerns raised.  
(vii) United States – Children's jewellery (G/TBT/N/USA/232) 
16. The representative of China  appreciated the objective of the US draft regulation to protect 
children's health and informed the Committee that comments had been s ubmitted to the United States.  
China was of the view that the lead requirement w as not in compliance with the least trade restrictive 
principle specified in the TBT Agre ement.   The US requirements did not take into account that the 
coating provided protection to childre n and reduced the risk of the exposure.  In addition, there was a 
difference between soluble and insoluble lead.  The United States needed to take into account both the 
exposure and the content of soluble lead rather than focusing on the total lead content in the jewellery.  
In China's view there was a lack of scientific evid ence regarding the lead content requirements.  The 
United States was requested to undertake a risk asse ssment to ensure that the new regulation did not 
create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.  
17. The representative of China recalled that Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement required 
Members to adopt international standards as a basi s for their technical regulations. In this regard, 
China noted that there was an ISO standard on the safety of toys (ISO 8124), which specified the lead 
content.  China suggested that the United States adopt this standard as a basis for its draft regulation.  
It was also pointed out that other alternatives to pr otect children's health were available (rather than 
setting the tolerance of lead content), for instance,  the use of warning labels or marks on Children's 
metal jewellery. Another concern was the lack of specificity regarding the definition of children's 
metal jewellery.  This could lead to an extension to other products which would lead to an increase of 
testing and production costs. The representative of China urged the United States to clarify the definition, coverage and the list of children's metal jewellery concerned by the measure. 
18. The representative of the United States
 noted that her authorities were still considering 
China's comments;  these would be take n into account in the final draft. 
(viii) India – Electrical products (G/TBT/N/IND/30 and Add.1) 
19. The representative of the European Communities  informed the Committee that comments had 
been submitted to India regarding the above me ntioned notification. He drew the Committee's 
attention to the related list of electrical products  (plugs, sockets or certain electrical households 
appliances) which would require a mandatory certifica tion from the Indian Bureau of Standards (BIS). 
The representative of the European Communities asked if these requirements were based on an 
international standard.  He was particularly co ncerned about the requirements regarding mandatory 
certification;  it was pointed out that alternative measures, which were less restrictive to trade and  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 5 
 
 
  which nevertheless ensured a high level of safety, could be considered.  The European Communities 
suggested, in this regard, that it could share with I ndia its experience with its Low Voltage Directive. 
20. The representative of India  took note of the comments and proposal made.  
(ix) India - Notification on protective headgear (G/TBT/N/IND/31 and Add.1) 
21. The representative of the European Communities  requested India to specify whether the 
above-mentioned notification was based on the in ternational standard UNECE regulation No 22 
which provided for uniform provisions concerning the approval of protective helmets and their visors 
for drivers and passengers of motorcycles and mopeds .  If this was not the case, he invited India to 
specify the differences between the Indian standa rd and the UNECE regulation and to outline the 
reasons why India considered the UNECE regulation 22 was not effective or appropriate to fulfil the 
legitimate objective pursued by India.   
22. The representative of India  took note of the concerns and questions raised.  
2. Previously Raised Concern 
(i) European Communities - Regulation on the Regi stration, Evaluation and Authorisation of 
Chemicals (REACH) (G/TBT/N/EEC/52, Add. 1-3 and Add.3/Rev.1) 
23. The representative of th e European Communities  made a presentation to the TBT Committee 
on a recently adopted European regulation entitled REACH (see above).  The presentation was based 
on two parts:  an overview of the REACH regulat ion;  and responses to Members' concerns and 
questions. 
(a) Overview 
24. The representative of the European Communities stressed that the key objective  of the 
REACH regulation was the protection of health , safety and the environment. Identifying and 
addressing the risks of chemicals was difficult with the previous legislation and the current EU chemicals management system was inefficient.  It was problematic to identify risks, and even when 
identified it was difficult to address the risk as there was (i) a lack of information about most 
substances on the market; (ii) the burden of proof r ested with public authorities; and (iii) there was no 
efficient instrument to deal with problematic substa nces.  Moreover, there was a lack of incentive for 
innovation under the previous legislation.  In fact, the previous legislation discriminated against new 
substances in comparison with the ones that had be en on the market for a long time because of the 
much higher requirements and associated costs.  The REACH addressed this problem by proposing one system for all chemicals whether they were ne w to the market or concerned existing substances. 
25. Regarding the REACH proposal itself, it was stressed that the main element was the 
registration  requirement for substances imported or manufactured in a volum e above one ton per 
year.  In other words, enterprises would have to  gather information on the substance, use that 
information to manage the substance safely and submit information to a central Agency. This 
information, once gathered, would be passed dow n the supply chain to allow the rest of the 
manufacturing industry to use the substances safely.  It was stressed that the authorisation system 
would only address substances of ve ry high concern and, in this sense, the system was built to 
prioritize according to the likelihood of risk:  substances with the greatest potential exposures and 
being produced in high volumes had to be register ed earlier.  Moreover, the authorisation system 
would be tailored to apply to the highly hazardous s ubstance, for instance with  respect to substances 
already known to be carcinogenic, mutage nic or toxic to reproduction (CMRs).  G/TBT/M/41 
Page 6  
 
  26. The registration system aimed at ensuring th at each EU manufacturer, importer and only 
representative of a substance took full responsibility for the risk management of the substance.  This 
was done by:  obtaining information to assess intrin sic hazards (e.g. through literature search, data 
sharing, if necessary testing);  assessing the risk s from identified uses (if more than 10 tonnes per 
year);  putting in place and recommending risk mana gement measures; and documenting that this was 
carried out by sending a registration dossier to the Agency by a given deadline.  It was pointed out 
that joint registrations would be the norm in order to reduce costs for enterprises and to minimize the 
need for animal testing.  However, opting out from joint registration would be possible in certain cases if it could be justified on confid entiality grounds or on cost grounds. 
27. The authorisation  process was to ensure that risks from substances of very high concern 
(SVHC) were adequately controlled and that th ey were progressively substituted.  These were 
concerns related to CMRs and those that had been identified as being persistent in the environment, 
bio-accumulative, accumulating in people's body or in an imal's bodies.  It was stressed that this was a 
small proportion of the total number of substances  on the market (about 5 per cent) and would be 
phased into the system and subjected  to specific authorisation requirements.   Each substance would 
get an individual deadline and use would be allowe d until a decision was taken on each application.   
The decision on use would be taken by the Commission based on Agency expert opinions.  The process would be transparent, allowing applicants  and interested parties to comment on the draft 
opinions prepared by the Agency.  Downstream users (for instance those buying chemicals from 
manufacturers or importers) would be also able to refe r to an authorisation obtained by their suppliers.  
28. It was the view of the European Communities that the authorisation system was both risk-
based and proportional because of the two ways in whic h an authorisation could be obtained.  First, 
authorisations could be granted if the applicant was able to demonstrate adequate control of risks.  
Second, authorisation could also be granted if th ere was no alternative substance or technology (even 
if the risks were not adequately controlled) and socio-economic benefits outweighed the risks.  The 
system also took into account risks of alterna tive substances and research activities considered.  
Moreover, it was pointed out that the authorisation would be associated with a review period based on 
substitution plans. 
29. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the review of the previous 
regulation had begun in 1998 and that  a first concrete result (the White Paper) setting out the structure 
of the proposed REACH regulation had been tabled in February 2001.  In May 2003 the internet 
consultation was launched and an early notice w as made to WTO Members (G/TBT/W/208).  In 
October 2003, the modified draft REACH regulation was adopted by the European Commission, and 
was notified to the WTO in January 2004 (G/TBT/N/ EEC/52).   The notification was later updated to 
reflect the Common Position (10 August 2006) and, on 18 December 2006, REACH was adopted by the European Council.  A latest notification to th e WTO, dated 9 February 2007, is contained in 
G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3/Rev.1. 
(b) WTO Members' concerns 
30. The representative of the European Communities noted that, in general, Members recognized 
the legitimacy of the goals REACH set out to a ddress:  health and environmental protection.  
Moreover, Members had also recognized that the pro posal and final regulation had been developed in 
a transparent way (2003 internet consultation, nu merous bilateral discussions, early WTO notification 
and several updates and significant changes made in the legislative process).   
31. Nevertheless, concerns remained  regarding the nature of the regulation and the way it would 
be implemented. A first group of issues raised  concerned non-discrimination with respect to 
"Substances in articles" (Article 7) and the appli cation of REACH to EU and non-EU manufacturers.  
Another group of questions was about the least trad e restrictiveness. Other individual concerns had  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 7 
 
 
  also been raised.  These included concerns relating to:  the inconsistent application by EU Member 
States; compatibility with international efforts;  minerals and ores;  monomers in polymers;  
authorisation and substitution;  protection of confidential inform ation and technical assistance and 
capacity building for developing countries.   
32. Regarding substance in articles  (Art. 7.1)15, it was stressed that the REACH Regulation 
distinguished between substances in articles that were  intended to be released and those that were not 
(Figure 1 below). For those intended to be released , there was a general obligation to register (unless 
a registration had already been made by another regi strant).  In this respect, the Commission was still 
studying how many of those substances or article s would be affected by th is requirement.  With 
regard to the second category, substances that were not intended to be released  (Art. 7.2), the REACH 
text focussed on substances of very high concern.  These substances had been defined as those which 
were a carcinogen, mutagen or substance toxic to  reproduction (CMR) as well as those that were  
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, those that we re very persistent and very bioaccumulative, and 
those that were of equivalent level of concern.  For these substances, a notification to the Agency (and 
not a full registration) would be necessary in order to  ensure that the Agency would be aware of the 
substances of very high concern used in both impor ted and EU manufactured articles. However, it was 
stressed that the notification would not trigger an y testing of the substance except in special cases 
where the Agency considered that ther e might be a considerable risk.    
Figure 1 
Substances in Articl es (REACH Article 7)
•≥1 t/year per manufacturer/importer
• Not yet registered for that purpose
Intended to be released (Art. 7.1)
General obligation to registerNot to intended to be released (Art. 7.2)
• Substance of very high concern
• Concentration above 0.1%
• Exposure cannot be excluded
Obligation to notify the Agency
(Agency may require registration)Same deadlines as 
for substances 
on their own or 
in preparationsDeadline 
6 months after
inclusion into
candidate list
 
33. Regarding the alleged discrimination  against non-EU producers of articles that were 
imported into the European Union, it was stressed that Article 7 was not discriminatory against articles imported into the European Union.  EU prod ucers and importers had the same duties, this was 
important and essential as otherwise there would be a loophole in protection sought.  The concept of a 
"candidate list" had been included in REACH to  force transparency and a certain degree of 
predictability, as well as to have a closed list of substances to which th e Article would apply. 
                                                     
 
15 A Room Document was provided by the European Communities providing detailed Questions & 
Answer information. G/TBT/M/41 
Page 8  
 
  34. Regarding the application of REACH to EU  and non-EU manufacturers and the alleged 
discrimination to the effect that it was more diffi cult for non-EU manufacturers to comply than for EU 
manufacturers, it was pointed out that REACH applied equally to EU and non-EU-producers.  In fact, 
most WTO Members had national legislations in place (with respect to risks of chemicals to health and safety) which non-national manufacturers had to comply with.  Regarding confidentiality 
concerns, non-EU manufacturers could appoint an " only representative" (Article 8).  Moreover, the 
European Comission was preparing extensive guida nce material for all actors.  The European 
Communities was, hence, of the view that REAC H was compatible with Article 2.1 of the TBT 
Agreement.  
35. Regarding the principle of least trade restrictiveness  and the concern that REACH was more 
trade restrictive than necessary a number of point s had been raised:  that there was potential for 
duplication of testing and risk assessments;  that authorisation was neither proportionate not based on 
hazard; and general concerns about the workability and burden on industry.   The representative of the 
European Communities reiterated that REACH was n ecessary to protect health and the environment 
and it complemented existing international pr ogrammes like the high production volume (HPV) 
chemicals programmes.  Existing information could be used and new testing was only a last resort.  It 
was also stressed that authorisation was limited to highly dangerous chemicals and decisions were 
taken based on risk.  Impact assessments had demonstrated that the benefits outweigh costs.  Finally, the REACH would be phased in over 11 years.  Cons idering this, the representative of the European 
Communities was of the view that REACH was fully  compatible with the Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement.  
36. Another concern raised by Members was that EU member States might not apply and enforce 
REACH consistently, leading to uncertainty  for importers and therefore to trade barriers.  In this 
regard, it was stressed that the REACH Regulation w as directly applicable in member States instead 
of being individually tran sposed as had been the case with the pr evious directive.  This approach 
would ensure more consistency.  Moreover, the Agen cy had been empowered to take decisions and to 
ensure consistency;  it would play a strong coordina tion role and would ensure more consistency.  In 
addition, within the Agency structure, a Forum for the Exchange of Info rmation on Enforcement 
would be held in order to both favour the exchange  of experience amongst the member States and to 
make sure that there would be consistency in th e approach to enforcement.  Extensive guidance 
documents would be updated by the Agency and this  would promote the consistent interpretation and 
application of REACH.  Finally, it was pointed out that if companies did not agree with certain 
decisions, it would be possible to appeal both to the Agency or to the European Court of Justice.  In 
conclusion, it was stressed that compared to the current situation, REACH would significantly 
improve consistency within the EU a nd therefore facilitate trade flows.  
37. There had also been concerns that REAC H allegedly would be incompatible with 
international  initiatives, such as the International Counc il of Chemical Associations (ICCA) HPV 
Program and the Globally Harmonized System (GHS).   In response it was point out that REACH was 
complementary to such programmes.  REACH impl emented a large number of the SAICM objectives 
(Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management).  Moreover,  information generated 
under the HPV programme could be used for REACH,  as long as registrants could demonstrate they 
had a right to use studies.  Any information ge nerated under other progra mmes could be used if 
appropriate.  It was also noted that the European Union was committed to the GHS (Globally 
Harmonized System) for the classification and labelling of chemicals. Therefore the representative of 
the European Communities was of the view that REACH was compatible with all international 
initiatives to control chemicals risk, and, moreover, supportive of many of them.  
38. On the specifics, it was noted that minerals, ores and ore concentrates  were exempted from 
registration as long as they were not chemically modi fied.  In respect of authorisation, it was noted 
that substances of very high concern in minerals, ores and ore concentrates could, at some stage,  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 9 
 
 
  become subject to authorisation.  The priorities fo r subjecting substances to authorisation were based 
on three criteria that would not be likely to appl y for minerals and ores:  (i) substances with PBT 
(Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic) and whic h had vPvB properties (very persistent and very 
bioaccumulative);  (ii) with wide dispersive use; and (iii) high volumes.  In addition, certain uses of 
highly dangerous substances could be exempted from authorisation.  In other words, even if a 
substance, present in minerals, would be subject to  authorisation at some stages, it would still be 
possible to exempt certain uses in particular if they were controlled under other community legislation.   
39. Regarding substitution , it was pointed out that REACH encouraged the substitution of 
dangerous substances.  This was pa rticularly relevant to: CMRs Categories 1 and 2,  PBTs, vPvB and 
Substances of equivalent concern (on a case-by-case basis, e.g. hormone disturbing substances).  
Progressive substitution was, in the view of the European Communities, a proportionate measure to 
protect health and environment if the risk could not  be adequately controlled and a suitable alternative 
existed.   
40. Regarding monomers in polymers , it was noted that two principles had been used in this 
area. First, polymers were exempted from registra tion.  Second, monomers had to be registered 
because even though they reacted fully to create polymers, free monomers and oligomers would be 
left creating the hazard profile of polymers.  It wa s pointed out that many oligomers were bioavailable 
and posed a risk.  Monomers would be used to assess the risks of polymers. 
41. Regarding the concern that REACH would allegedly not sufficiently protect confidential 
information , the representative of the European Communiti es stated that Article 105 of the REACH 
regulation required those who dealt with the informa tion (both technical experts and Agency staff) to 
maintain confidentiality, even after they left the Agency. Moreover, Articles 118 and 119 regulated 
the access to documents and to information and a number of safeguards would protect the 
confidentiality of information. However, although certain information would be always considered 
confidential, it was noted that some key health saf ety and environmental information could be made 
available.  Nevertheless, in such cases, the Agen cy would consult the owner of the information. 
Finally, it was pointed out that it would be possible to appeal decisions. 
42. Regarding the concern that REACH might be difficult for developing countries  to apply, the 
European Commission recognized its obligations under Article 11.3 of the TBT Agreement.  
Therefore, extensive guidance material, technical a ssistance and capacity building was planned.  The 
Committee was informed that "trial runs" had take n place in 2004-2005 with European industries. The 
"strategic partnership with industr y" had made it possible to test the REACH system in some cases 
and to establish and improve the workability of the pr ocess.  It was noted that a Help Desk would be 
housed within the Agency and within each memb er State which would serve as a single access point 
for EU and non-EU manufacturers should they have  questions about REACH.  The guidance package 
would contain three elements:  (i) start pages (w ith general information on REACH and a summary of 
the processes);  (ii) a "Guidance Navigator" (with the roles and obligations based on flow 
charts/decision rules to guiding the user to rele vant detailed guidance); a nd (iii) detailed guidance on 
steps (roles, obligations and actions) and methods to  be used in these steps.  This guidance document 
would be available on the internet in June 2007.
16 
43. The representative of Israel  noted that most of his delegation's concerns had been addressed 
by the REACH presentation. Howeve r, he was still concerned by the treatment of small and medium 
enterprises (SMEs).  In his understanding, SMEs were  entitled to some form of special treatment but, 
                                                      
16 More information on REACH was available at:   
 http://ec.europa.eu/comm/enterprise/ reach/index.htm and 
 http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm. G/TBT/M/41 
Page 10  
 
  nevertheless, in his view, such a treatment would become ineffective once the registration was 
required for local importers within the Communities.  
44. The representative of Korea
 shared the concern expressed by Israel in particular regarding the 
effects on SMEs and possible special treatment. 
45. The representative of the United States  recalled that the WTO did not allow Members to make 
any interpretations about the compliance of specifi c measures with a WTO Agr eement.  She requested 
the European Communities to: (i) provide more in formation about efforts to educate the business 
community, especially outside Europe; (ii) provide more information on the implementation of the 
new regulation; and (iii) to respond directly to th e questions raised because of the necessity for the 
delegations to communicate them to the thei r constituents and interested parties.  
46. The representative of Brazil  requested more information on the concrete steps and 
programmes that had been taken to provide technical assistance to developing countries.  
47. The representative of Australia  was disappointed that the amendment excluding minerals and 
ores from the registration process had not been adopte d. However, she noted that minerals, ores and 
concentrates would, in certain cases, not need to be  authorized and welcomed this clarification. The 
implementation process of REACH would be followed ve ry closely by Australia to assess its impact 
on the Australian industry over the coming years.  
48. The representative of Japan  expressed his regret that the issue regarding the registration of 
monomers and polymers had not been solved in the final draft. In addition, he asked the European 
Communities to clarify the details on the development of the REACH guidance.  
49. The representative of Chile  was concerned about the potential impact of REACH on Chilean 
exports, in particular regarding the SMEs.  First, she informed the Committee that Chile promoted the 
use of scientific basis as well as the non-application of the precautionary principle and her delegation, 
was, in this regard, sceptical regarding the im plementation of REACH.  She was particularly 
concerned with the criteria used in risk manageme nt that might ban substances branded as dangerous 
because of some of their characteristics, even thoug h the risks of certain substances might be properly 
managed.  She raised the issue regarding the capacity  of Chilean labs to conduct the tests called for by 
the regulation.  The European Communities was re quested to provide further information on how 
technical assistance to third countries would be  granted and expressed her delegation's wish to 
participate in consultation on the guidelines that would determine how REACH would be applied.  
50. The representative of Canada  noted that although his delegation supported the health and 
environmental objectives of REACH, he had a number of specific questions.  First, it was his 
understanding that the polymer importer would be res ponsible for the registration of substances.  Yet, 
the supplier might not know the identity of the m onomers used in the polymer and believed that this 
requirement would disadvantage the importers.  A risk-based approach would have focused on 
unreacted monomers in the polymers that were present in sufficient concentrations to present a risk to 
humans or the environment.  He asked the European  Communities to confirm that the requirement to 
register would apply only to unr eacted monomers in polymers. 
51. Regarding transported intermediates, even  though the REACH regulation included an 
exemption for transported isolated intermedia tes in quantities under a thousand tonnes per year, 
Canada was concerned that imported intermediate s would have to face more stringent assessment 
requirements than locally produced onsite intermedia tes, potentially placing foreign manufacturers at 
a competitive disadvantage. Therefore, he requested  the European Commission to provide information 
on how it would intend to implement these requirements so that they would not create unnecessary 
barriers to trade.    G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 11 
 
 
  52. With regards to exemptions for non-chemically  modified concentrates, the representative of 
Canada was of the understanding that mineral ores and non chemically modified concentrates were 
not subject to registration and evaluation but pote ntially subject to authorisation. Canada sought 
clarification about the EC interpretation of “chemic ally modified” in the context of mineral ores and 
concentrates:  would the European  Communities interpret and equate a chemical surface treatment of 
an ore or concentrate that did not alter the bulk co mposition of the concentrate to be equivalent to a 
chemical modification of the concentrate?   
53. Regarding the review of exemptions (Annexe 4 and 5) that the representative of Canada 
understood would be made within one year of the entry into force of REACH, he asked if the 
European Commission planned to consult its trad ing partners. The representative of Canada hoped 
that his delegation would be consulted in other re views, in particular regarding the criteria for 
persistence bioaccumulation, the possible inclusion of polymers, and the assessment requirements for 
substances between one and ten tonnes.   The Eur opean Communities was also  asked to clarify the 
concept of "trading partners".  
54. On substances in articles, the representative of  Canada considered that a risk-based approach 
to substances in articles would focus on the inte ntional release of dangero us substances and the 
release of substances subject to authorisation. Ther efore, he asked if the Eu ropean Chemical Agency 
would be empowered to request that a registration be submitted if it had grounds to suspect that the 
release of a substance from an article may present a ri sk to human health or the environment even if 
that release was unintentional.  
55. Finally, Canada echoed the positive comments made  by other delegations on the transparency 
of the whole process of developing REACH and as ked the European Commission to continue with 
this transparent approach and to notify its draft te chnical guidance documents that had been developed 
under the REACH implementation project. 
56. The representative of the European Communities  noted, in respect of SMEs, that REACH by 
nature could only apply to EU companies, in other words it did not apply directly to SMEs from third 
countries.  There were two aspects of REACH that w ould in fact help the SMEs.  First, the afore-
mentioned guidance that would be made available on th e Internet and in particular the Navigator Tool 
that would identify the role and the obligation of the industries under REACH.  Second, the structure 
of the regulation itself (on volumes) would help SM Es as these enterprises, by their nature, produced 
lower volumes of chemicals, they would be require d to generate less information and hence would 
benefit from lower cost and lower associated fees.    
57. More specifically on technical assistance , it was pointed out that, in addition to the above-
mentioned assistance (Help Desk, guidance docum entation), under the Strategic Approach to 
International Chemicals Management (SAICM pr ocess) funds had been made available under a 
"quick start programme".  More information on other assistance programmes in the pipeline was available at the DG Environment.    
58. Regarding the concern raised by Japan, the representative of the European Communities 
noted that the European Commission was workin g on clarifying some technical aspects in the 
guidance material.  On Chile's concern about a ba n on substances, it was recalled that REACH was a 
risk based system and that, therefore, there was no intention of banning substances if the risks were 
adequately managed.  Regarding th e question about the capacity of laboratories to perform tests, it 
was noted that the test should be performed according to the OECD code of good laboratory practice 
(GLP);  some suggestions were available in th e Room Document regarding cooperation with the 
OECD on good laboratory practice. G/TBT/M/41 
Page 12  
 
  59. In respect of Canada's comments and ques tions, the representative of the European 
Communities noted that the detailed answers of the f our first questions were available in the Room 
Document.  Regarding the consultation of trading pa rtners on the review of polymer requirements, he 
explained to the Committee that stakeholders woul d be consulted but that the deadlines would not 
allow for a formal consultation process in this fo rum. However, the representative of the European 
Communities would consider other possibilities in the time available. Regarding the question on 
substances in articles, it was confirmed that the Ag ency could request a registration if there was a non 
intentional release. Finally, the European Communiti es would look into how to notify the technical 
guidance documents to the TBT Committee.  
(ii) European Communities - Draft Commission Deci sion regarding the Classification of the  
Reaction to Fire Performance of Construc tion Products (G/TBT/N/EEC/92 and Add.1) 
60. The representative of Japan
 continued to be concerned that the above-mentioned draft 
directive would discriminate against PVC coated cabl es in trade. In accordance with Article 2.5 of the 
TBT Agreement, she asked the Eur opean Communities for further explanations.  Japan asked why the 
acidity was used as a safety crite rion. Japan was of the understanding that the European Communities 
had implied the incapacitation risk to be explained by the acidity criterion, but Japan wanted to know 
whether this linkage derived from a risk assessment;  if so, what was the scientific evidence?  The 
representative of Japan also asked the European Communities to furthe r clarify the concept of acidity 
criteria.  
61. The representatives of the Korea , Philippines , Thailand  and the United States  supported the 
comments made by Japan. 
62. The representative of the European Communities  noted in respect of the acidity criteria, that 
his delegation's written reply made re ference to several studies that had lead up to the choice of the 
acidity criteria.  Regarding the scope of the cons truction works, the representative of the European 
Communities pointed out that the European Commission's decision did not make the use of the acidity criterion mandatory:  this choice was left for member States.   
(iii) Korea – Import of Fish Heads 
63. The representative of New Zealand
 recalled that when this issue had last been raised in the 
TBT Committee, Korea had indicated its willingness to establish workable import conditions for New 
Zealand fish hake heads. Nevertheless, the re presentative of New Zealand informed the Committee 
that Korea had not shown that it would formally recognize edible hake heads as a food product by 1 January 2007 and, moreover, Korea had recently announced to New Zealand that it would not be 
taking this step until 2008. New Zealand did not find this delay acceptable.   
64. The representative of Norway
 echoed these concerns and urged Korea to take steps to find a 
mutually satisfactory solution for Members concerned.  
65. The representative of th e European Communities  informed the Committee that good progress 
had been made under the ongoing bilateral discu ssions and a Memorandum of Understanding was 
almost finalized;  it was expected that the two pa rties would be able to sign the agreement in the 
coming weeks. 
66. The representative of Korea  expressed his surprise that New Z ealand again raised the issue of 
edible hake heads. Korea and New Zealand had r eached a bilateral agreement on this issue after 
several technical expert meetings, and, therefor e, his delegation was under the impression that the 
issue was in the final stages. It was noted that th e Korean government probably needed time to adapt  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 13 
 
 
  its domestic legislation to implement the issue. However, both New Zealand's and Norway's concern 
would be reported to the capital and an an swer would be provided as soon as possible.  
(iv) Sweden – Restrictions on the use of  Deca-bromo diphenylether (deca-BDE) 
(G/TBT/N/SWE/59) 
67. The representative of Israel  informed the Committee of th e negative impact of the above-
mentioned measure on Israel's exports.  He recalled th at this concern had been raised before its entry 
into force on 1 January 2007.  He was of the view th at, in line with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, 
the prohibition was an unnecessary obstacle to trade: Sweden had not demonstrate the existence of a 
risk affecting human health or the protection of th e environment.  It was recalled that the European 
Commission, after having undertaken a comprehensive risk assessment, had co ncluded that there was 
no need for risk reduction measures beyond those th at were already in place. Therefore, Israel 
suggested that Sweden adopt less trade-restrictive measures similar to those adopted in the European 
Union as, for instance, an emission reduction programme and bio-environmental monitoring.  The representative of Israel objected to the alleged urge nt nature or the problem, based on Article 2.10 of 
the TBT Agreement.  He considered that the lack of  demonstration of the existence of a risk implied 
that the measure did not concern an urgent risk to safety, health or environmental protection.  
68. The representatives of Jordan
, the United States  and Japan  associated themselves with the 
statement made by Israel and requested an up date by the European Communities on internal 
discussions regarding the measure.  
69. The representative of th e European Communities  took note of the concern but was not in a 
position to provide a substantive response;  th e European Commission and the Swedish authorities 
were still discussing the matter. 
(v) Norway - Restrictions on the use of  Deca-bromo diphenylether (deca-BDE) 
(G/TBT/N/NOR/6) 
70. The representative of Japan , supported by Israel , expressed her delegation's interest in the 
scientific evidence and the results of the public h earings regarding the above-mentioned prohibition. 
She also requested Norway to explain the justificati on of the regulation in line with Article 2.5 of the 
TBT Agreement.  
71. The representative of Norway  pointed out that the prohibition of deca-BDE was still being 
assessed and had, therefore, not entered into force on  1 July 2006 as had been originally proposed in 
the draft sent to the public hearing.  However, Norway was concerned that deca-BDE had been found 
in birds and polar bears in Arctic areas and accord ing to a risk assessment report of May 2004, there 
were concerns relating to neurot oxic effects and possible formations of more toxic and accumulative 
products.  Therefore, Norway intended to reduce emissions from brominated flame retardants 
substantially by 2010 in order to reduce or avoid risk of its h azardous properties to human health and 
the environment. 
(vi) China - Revision of the list of toxic chemicals s everely restricted in the People's Republic of 
China in the regulation for environmental management on the first import of chemicals and 
the import and export of toxic chemicals 
72. The representative of Japan  expressed her delegation's conc ern regarding the revision and 
enforcement of the above-mentioned regulation. She r ecalled that questions had been posed at the last 
meeting of the Committee and noted that the provi ded answers had not been detailed enough.  Japan 
was of the view that SEPA's announcement regardi ng the revised list (on 30 December 2006) and the 
implemented enforcement based on it (since 1 Janua ry 2007) had not followed the appropriate G/TBT/M/41 
Page 14  
 
  procedure and were therefore inconsistent regardi ng Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement.  Moreover, 
the representative of Japan requested China, in acco rdance with Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement, to 
notify any potential additional chemicals on the list at the early appropriate stage.  
73. The representative of the European Communities
 asked China for an update on the current 
developments regarding the operati on of requirements on mixtures a nd articles containing substances 
that were strictly restricted.  In addition, th e European Communities expressed its concern regarding 
the registrations fees and urged China to lower them  in accordance with the real administrative cost 
rendered by the service. 
74. The representative of China  noted that the announcement (65/2005) was related to a list of 
toxic chemicals with two purposes: (i) the protection of human health and environment by fulfilling 
the PIC and POPs conventions (releva nt international conventions), a nd (ii) the management of risk 
with respect to chemical substances which, in any case, were already listed in other countries. 
Therefore, domestic manufacturers of the listed rest ricted toxic chemicals would be subject to an 
environmental registration and regulation on entry and exit of toxic chemicals. 
(vii) Belgium and The Netherlands – Seal products (G/TBT/N/BEL/39 and G/TBT/N/NLD/68) 
75. The representative of Canada  expressed his continued concern about the above-mentioned 
notified regulations and recalled pr evious discussions on the subject. He reminded EU member States 
that Canada, in a series of science based in formation sessions with senior EU officials had 
emphasized that the seal hunt was both sustainable and humane.  The Canadian seal population was not endangered and the hunting methods satisfied  both the Canadian and American Veterinary 
Association for Humane Killing and Euthanasia.  Moreover, the seal hunt was a cultural tradition as 
well as a significant source of income for sealing co mmunities in Atlantic Canada.   Canada was of 
the understanding that the European Commission would examine available information and take measures to ascertain the use of humane hunting standards before  taking further action regarding the 
import of seal products.  It was suggested that the European Commission work with Canadian 
officials to expand its examination beyond seals to reflect upon all commercial hunting practices both 
inside and outside the European Union.  Canada was particularly concerned about a recent session of 
the European Parliament where EU member States  were encouraged by th e European Commission to 
introduce their own legislation against the importati on of seal products.  The representative of Canada 
requested therefore the European Commission to take  strong steps to discourage EU member States 
from so proceeding. 
76. The representative of Norway
 shared the concerns of Canada  and reiterated her delegation's 
view that the Belgian and Dutch notifications did not conform with Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement.  Moreover, Norway was of the opinion that invoking the "protection of public morality" 
and "reasons of public opinion and animal suffering" we re neither in line with the requirements of the 
TBT Agreement nor with those of Article XX of the GATT.  A ban on importation of seal products 
set a dangerous precedent for trade in animal products that were harvested in a sustainable and 
humane manner.  Factual information on seal hun ting had been provided to Belgian and Dutch 
authorities, as well as to the European Commission.  The Norwegian seal hunt was strictly regulated 
and proven to be both sustainable and humane. It was reiterated that seal quotas were set on the basis 
of scientific advice, and that the state of seal popul ations was within the boundaries of sustainable 
management. It was pointed out that Norwegian seal hunting compared favourably to practices used 
in domestic livestock.   She expressed surprise and concern that the European Commission had 
encouraged EU member States to introduce their ow n legislation against the importation of sealskins 
whereas, as had been mentioned by Canada, it had shown an intention to base its decision on a full 
objective assessment of hunting methods. Therefore,  Norway requested the European Commission to 
take further steps to discourage Member states from proceeding with bans while the assessment was  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 15 
 
 
  being conducted.  Finally, Norway reserved its ri ght to take any appropriate action necessary to 
defend its case under the TBT Agreement a nd other relevant WTO agreements.  
77. The representative of the European Communities  pointed out that the European Commission, 
in its response to the European Parliament, had st ated that seals were not an endangered species and 
thus a ban on importation of seal's skin could not  be imposed on conservation grounds. Nevertheless, 
the European Commission recognized the concerns of  the public regarding the application of humane 
killing methods. Therefore it would conduct, in line  with its commitment to high animal welfare 
standards, an in-depth and objectiv e analysis of all the existing scientific information relating to the 
animal welfare aspect of seal hunting. The represen tative of the European Communities added that in 
the light of the outcome, the Dutch and Belgian pr oposed bans would be examined and conclusions 
would be drawn, taking into account public opinion.  
(viii) India - Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles (G/TBT/N/IND/20) 
78. The representative of the European Communities  recalled a previously raised concern 
regarding pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles. He informed the Committee that his 
delegation had not received any clarification on this i ssue.  Therefore, India was requested to give an 
update on the status of this regulation.  Would ex isting international standa rds be considered? Would 
certain products, especially tyres, covered by UNECE standards, be admitted on the Indian market?   
79. The representative of the United-States  associated her delegation with the views expressed by 
the European Communities and added that it was he r understanding that the regulation would go into 
force at the end of the month.   
80. The representative of India  admitted that high road temperatures was perhaps not sufficient 
enough a reason to justify the prescribed standard.  He  was willing to further discuss the issue with the 
European Communities and confirmed that the regulation had gone into force.  
(ix) China - Measures on the Environmental M anagement of New Chemical Substances 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/210) 
81. The representative of the European Communities  informed the Committee that China had 
provided a reply to the comments made by her delega tion.  However, she noted  that one point raised 
had not been clarified:  the deadline of five days for notifying new substances to the Chinese 
authorities. She urged China to introduce a less restrictive filing record scheme. Moreover, the 
European Communities expressed its interest in  knowing whether any modification had been 
introduced. 
82. The representative of China  took note of the European Communities' concern.  
(x) Switzerland – Draft Ordinance on Measures to Re duce Particle Emissions from Diesel 
Engines (G/TBT/N/CHE/67) 
83. The representative of th e European Communities  requested Switzerland to provide an update 
regarding the state of play of the above-menti oned measure which had been raised at the TBT 
Committee's November meeting.   
84. The representative of Switzerland  explained that the relevant Swiss ministries had not reached 
an agreement on the final decision and that the or iginal deadline had been postponed.  The Committee 
would be informed once an agreement had been reached.  G/TBT/M/41 
Page 16  
 
  (xi) Uruguay – Decree on the Enrichment of Wheat Flour and Foods Prepared with Wheat Flour 
(G/TBT/N/URY/2) 
85. The representative of the European Communities
 was of the view that the above-mentioned 
notification had lead to positive developments .  Some products had been excluded from the 
requirements of mandatory enrichment. For instan ce, in December 2006, the Ministerial Decree was 
modified by a law which introduced the possibility of granting derogations to a number of products. 
The European Communities e xpressed its interest in knowing whethe r this list of products had been 
approved and when the provision would enter into fo rce.  It was recalled that according to the TBT 
Agreement, the measure should be no mo re trade restrictive than necessary.  
(xii) Saudi Arabia – International Conformity Certification Programme (ICCP) 
86. The representative of Japan  informed the Committee that her delegation had submitted a 
questionnaire to Saudi Arabia regarding its abolition of ICCP.  Japan had requested Saudi Arabia to 
clarify the import formalities for motor vehicles. In pa rticular, Saudi Arabia had been asked to clarify 
the Certificate of Conformity for automobiles based  on Ministerial Resolution No. 6386, according to 
which vehicle type approval certificates issued by the Gulf Standards Organization (GSO) could serve 
as conformity certification of imported automobile.  
87. The representative of the United States  noted that her delegation continued to be concerned 
about the failure of Saudi Arabia to publish in Engl ish, on its website, the details of its certificate of 
compliance.  
C. EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCES  
1. Good Regulatory Practice 
88. The Chairman  recalled that the Fourth Triennial Review set out recommendations for future 
work with a view to deepening Members' understa nding of the contribution good regulatory practice 
could make to the implementation of the TBT Agr eement.  Pursuant to these recommendations it was 
agreed that the Committee would hold a workshop on the topic of good regulatory practice in March 2008.
17  He encouraged Members to communicate, to the Secretariat, specific proposals for 
contributions to the workshop.   
89. The representative from Brazil  informed the Committee about a draft national guide on good 
practice that would soon be finalized and that  could be of interest to upcoming workshop. 
90. The representative from Chinese Taipei  drew the Committee's attention to a series of studies 
that had been launched in preparation for establis hing a mechanism for Regulatory Impacts Analysis 
(RIA).  His authorities had studied the experiences of various OECD members, including the United 
States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Korea and Australia, and had carried out an empirical analysis 
of Chinese Taipei's Commodity Inspection Act.  Chinese Taipei had also volunteered to conduct its 
own self-assessment on the APEC-OECD Integrated Checklist on Regulatory Reform in September 
2006.   Action plans and guidelines were now in the process of being developed for the use of the RIA 
mechanism in its regulatory regime.  The delega tion of Chinese Taipei expressed its willingness to 
share its studies and experience with Members at the March 2008 workshop.   
91. The representative of the OECD  provided an update on her organization's activities in the 
areas of good regulatory practice and market openness (G/TBT/GEN/48). 
                                                      
17 The Committee's Future Work on good regulatory practice is set out in G/TBT/19, paras 19-20.  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 17 
 
 
  92. The Chairman  encouraged Members to come forward with submissions.  At the next meeting, 
the Committee would need to discuss how to pro ceed with the follow-up to the recommendations 
included in Paragraph 19(a)-(g) of G/TBT/19.  
2. Conformity Assessment Procedures 
93. The Chairman  recalled that the Fourth Triennial Review set out three areas for continued 
sharing of experiences with a view to furtheri ng Members' understanding of the implementation of 
Articles 5 to 9 of the TBT Agreement.18 
(i) MRAs 
94. The representative from Japan , on behalf of APEC Members, introduced a paper entitled Case 
Study to Clarify Effectiveness of MRAs (G/TBT/W/276). 
95. The representative of the European Communities  made preliminary rema rks on Japan's paper.  
He first questioned the clarity of the categorization for MRAs used in the paper (Categories A,  B, C 
etc).  While these could reflect terms used in APEC, th ey were not further explained in the paper.  He 
noted, with respect to the points under paragra ph 11 of the paper (G/TBT/W/276) on "Multilateral 
MRAs", that these points also applied to bilatera l MRAs (under paragraph 12).  Also, the European 
Communities had found that MRAs had been good mechanisms for information exchange and 
building up confidence and that, in many cases, these had increased confidence:  this was a type of 
regulatory cooperation which needed to be emphasize d more.  With respect to the inefficiencies and 
difficulties of MRAs (on p.4 of G/TBT/W/276), th e representative of th e European Communities 
agreed with many of the findings although it was his view that this section of the paper did not appear 
to include ideas for improvements.  He suggested th at future work in the TBT Committee could focus 
more on this aspect.  
96. The representative of Canada  was of the view that the paper made positive contribution to 
Members' understanding of the benefits and the actualities of MRAs.  He informed the Committee 
that Canada would provide some comments regard ing further clarification as well as some data 
reflecting the Canadian experience with MRAs as a contributing APEC member.  
97. The representative of Japan , referring to the question from th e European Communities, noted 
that Footnote 1 of the document (G/TBT/W/276) pr ovided a reference to the APEC SCSC website 
where the more information c ould be downloaded including an  explanation of the various 
categories.19 
98. The Chairman  encouraged other Members to come forward with contributions or statements 
regarding their experiences on conformity assessment  procedures in response to the recommendations 
contained in the Fourth Triennial Review. 
3. Transparency 
99. The Chairman  noted that the Committee continued to fine-tune its work on transparency 
based on a number of decisions and recommendations taken to improve access to information and improve the implementation of the transparency pr ocedures under the Agreement.  He noted that the 
                                                     
 
18 G/TBT/19, para 46. 
 19http://www.apec.org/content/apec/documents_re ports/sub-committee_standards_conformance/ 
2006.html.  Doc. No. 006 "Report on Case Study to Cl arify Effectiveness of Mutual Recognition Arrangements 
(MRAs)". G/TBT/M/41 
Page 18  
 
  Fourth Triennial Review contained a wide range of specific and technical recommendations (some 13 
specific recommendations under seven sub-headings).
20 
(i) Attachments to notifications, translations and webpages 
100. The representative of Chile  referred to paragraph 68(c)(ii)21 and recalled that this had been 
discussed at length during the preparation of the tr iennial review, and a document by the Secretariat 
had been submitted in this rega rd (G/TBT/GEN/40).  She noted that, at present, many Members 
indicated the internet address where the notified do cuments could be obtained.  However, for those 
Members who did not have the possibility to use th e internet to post their draft regulations, she 
wondered if there would be a possibility to send su ch documents to the Secretariat so that the 
Secretariat could circulate it together with the notif ication.  She inquired about the practicability of a 
mechanism that would be made available only to th ose Members that did not have internet facilities 
and if this could be considered as a fourth option in addition to the three set out in the Secretariat 
paper (G/TBT/GEN/40).   
101. The representative of Brazil  referred to paragraph 68(a)(i)22 and suggested that one way to 
address this recommendation would be to allow c ountries to provide information on webpages. He 
noted that in paragraph 68(c)(iv)23 there was a reference to the notifications of technical regulations 
already approved;  but, in his view, it would be inte resting to have that option also to notify intended 
future  regulations using websites.  On another issue, the delegation of Brazil was of the view that the 
area of transparency and technical assistance we re connected – and this needed to be discussed 
further.  It was recalled that the Fourth Triennial Review already contained some recommendations relevant to transparency in respect of the demand and supply of technical assistance.
24  It was pointed 
out that in Brazil transparency in technical assist ance had two aspects: transparency in the demand 
and in the supply of technical assistance itself.  He  stressed that technical assistance needed to be 
transparent.  Moreover, technical assistance was ne cessary to obtain transparency and implementation 
of the TBT Agreement.  
102. The representative of Chile  referred to paragraph 68(c)(iv) which Brazil had just mentioned, 
regarding ways to enhance the sharing of transla tion of documents.  She noted that certain Members 
had websites where these translations were published concerning draft regulations of other  Members.  
She stressed that it would be very useful for the Co mmittee if the Secretariat could prepare a list of all 
these different internet addresses so that the whole Committee could benefit from these texts. 
103. The Secretariat  recalled, in respect of attachments to notifications (referring to paragraph 
68(c)(ii)), that the WTO's IT experts had examin ed this issue and set out various scenarios for 
Members' consideration (see the three scenarios contained in G/TBT/GEN/40).  The suggestion from 
Chile appeared to be relevant to Scenario 2:  Members would provide the notified documents in 
conjunction with the notification itself (for instance as a pdf file) and this attachment would then be 
stored by the Secretariat on a separate central server (but neither scanned nor translated).  Hence, this 
                                                      
20 G/TBT/19, para 68. 
21 In G/TBT/19, para 68(c)(ii) the Committee agreed, with regard to texts of notified technical 
regulations and conformity assessment procedures, "to explore ways to attach to the notification form a copy of 
the text of the notified measure". 
22 In G/TBT/19, para 68(a)(i) the Committee agreed, with regard to the publication of a notice of 
proposed technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, "to examine ways in which the 
publications for such notices – and their content – are made  available, so as to enable all interested parties to 
become acquainted with them". 
23 Which is about exploring ways to enhance the sharing of translation of documents referred to in 
notifications, such as posting on Me mbers' websites or developing a format to inform other Members of the 
existence of translations of notified measures. 
24 See, in particular, Sec tion II.E.1. of G/TBT/19.  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 19 
 
 
  was feasible.  The issue was one of financial implications.  It was now up to the Committee as a 
whole to consider whether it wanted to go down that road or not.    
104. The representative of Egypt  suggested that if there existed a translation of notified technical 
regulations that this could be indicated in the notifi cation format itself, with a reference to the website 
where it could be obtained.   
105. In respect of translations, the representative of the United States  recalled that the Committee 
already had a decision relating to translations.  This  decision was that when a translation existed or 
was planned, this fact s hould be indicated in the notification form at next to the title of the document.25  
She suggested that a box could be added to make this clearer. 
106. The representative of the European Communities  noted with respect to translations that the 
European Communities had a website where translat ed version of the notified texts were made 
available.  He did not believe there was a need for an  additional notification in this regard.  It was also 
pointed out that the document prepared by the Secretariat on official publications in relation to technical regulations, conformity assessment procedur es and standards was useful in this regard as it 
contained relevant website addresses (G/TBT/GEN/39). 
(ii) Fifth Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange 
107. The Chairman
 recalled that the Committee would hold its Fifth Special Meeting on 
Procedures for Information Exchange in 2007 and that this meeting would be of  a technical nature for 
persons responsible for informati on exchange, including persons res ponsible for enquiry points and 
notifications.  It was agreed that the Special Me eting be held back-to-back with the Committee's 
November regular meeting (7-9 November 2007).   
4. Technical Assistance 
108. The Chairman  recalled that in the Fourth Triennial Review there were three recommendations 
on technical assistance.  The first two dealt with the notification format (G/TBT/16) and the third one was about the delivery and receipt of technical assistance.
26    
(i) Notification format (G/TBT/16) 
109. The Chairman  recalled that the notification format ha d been adopted on a trial basis for two 
years and that the Fourth Triennial Review refe rred to a review of this format in 2007.   
110. The representative from the European Communities  noted that in his opinion the use of the 
format had hardly been prolific (only three notifi cations made).  His delegation had been expecting 
developing countries to use the format more than wh at they had.  The Comm ittee needed to look into 
the reasons for this.  Nevertheless, developing c ountries were receiving technical assistance without 
using this process.   
111. The representative of Egypt  noted that it was his delegation's understanding that the 
notification format covered not only the need (d emand) for technical assistance but also the offer  of 
technical assistance.  Hence, also developed country Members could make use of the mechanism to indicate the supply of technical assistance.  It w as a mutual responsibility on both beneficiaries and 
the providers. 
                                                     
 
25 G/TBT/1/Rev.8, p.16. 
26 G/TBT/19, para. 78. G/TBT/M/41 
Page 20  
 
  112. The representative of the United States
 agreed with Egypt:  the format was supposed to be 
used by those with needs as well  as those who were able to r espond or indicate that they were 
providing assistance.  However, she recalled the di fficulties that her delegation had in providing 
comprehensive information on their assistance activ ities in the TBT area.  In the United States the 
information was not collected on a centralized basis, rather it existed in a very decentralized manner.  
It was noted that the United States had taken the opportunity in response to the notifications that had 
been made to see if they could provide informa tion on activities underway which might be responsive 
but, unfortunately, in the three specific cases notifie d the United States did not have information to 
forward.  Regarding the infrequent use of the notific ation format, this could also be seen in a positive 
light.  It was the US understanding that when the notification format was agreed it was intended to 
address some perceived gaps in assistance.  As few notification had been made this was perhaps an 
indication needs were being met through existing assistance programmes. 
113. The Representative of Brazil  supported Egypt's statement regarding the importance for donors 
of technical assistance to notify.     
(ii) Good practices in respect of the delivery and receipt of technical assistance 
114. The representative of Egypt , supported by Brazil , urged Members to share their experiences 
in relation to technical assistance – whether as donors or beneficiaries.  Having actual submissions on 
this matter would enable the Comm ittee to discuss more thoroughly th e problems and ideas on how to 
make the delivery of technical assistance more effective.     
5. Special and Differential Treatment 
115. The Chairman  noted that the Fourth Triennial Revi ew encouraged Members to inform the 
Committee of special and differential treatment provided to developing country Members, and also 
encouraged developing country Members to unde rtake their own assessme nts of the utility and 
benefits of such special and differential treatment .  For a more focused exchange of information on 
special and differential treatment in the TBT area to materialize, there was a need for specific 
contributions from Members.27 
D. OTHER MATTERS  
(i) Report on APEC's work on standards 
116. The representative of Japan  introduced a report on the results  of standards alignment work in 
APEC (G/TBT/W/275). 
(ii) Terms and Definitions 
117. The representative of Brazil  referred to document Job(06)/252 (The Reference to the Sixth 
Edition of the ISO/IEC Guide 2: 1991 in Anne x 1 of the TBT Agreement on Terms and Their 
Definitions).  He stated that any amendment of A nnex 1 could be along the lines of what was stated in 
the first bullet of paragraph 19 of document Job( 06)/252 and that any such amendment would need to 
be subject to the evaluation and approval by the Committee.   
118. The Chairman  recalled that the Committee had agreed to hold further discussions on this topic 
and, in this context, the suggestion by Brazil would be taken into account.28 
                                                      
27 G/TBT/19, para. 82. 
28 G/TBT/19, para. 2.  G/TBT/M/41 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (iii) Intellectual Property Issues in Standardization 
119. The representative of China  introduced two papers on Intellectual Property Issues in 
Standardization (G/TBT/W/251 and G/TBT/W/251/Add.1).  It was noted that although there had been 
discussions in the Committee during the preparation of  the Fourth Triennial Review, Members needed 
more information to facilitate th e understanding and further discussion of this issue.  The Committee 
was also informed of an event on this subject that was to be held in Beijing, in April 2007.29 
III. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION ACTIVITIES 
120. The representatives of the Codex  (G/TBT/GEN/51), ISO  (G/TBT/GEN/50), ITC  
(G/TBT/GEN/52) and the UNIDO30 updated the Committee on relevant ongoing technical assistance 
activities.  Relevant information on the Secretariat 's technical assistance activities in 2007 was 
available as document G/TBT/GEN/47. 
IV. TWELFTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF: 
A. THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE TBT AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.3 
121. The Committee adopted  its report of the Twelfth Annual Review of the Implementation and 
Operation of the TBT Agreement under Ar ticle 15.3 (G/TBT/21/Rev.1 and Corr.1) 
B. THE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE (ANNEX 3) 
122. The Chairman  introduced the Twelfth Edition of the WTO TBT Standards Code Directory 
prepared by the ISO/IEC Information Centre.  He also drew the Committee's attention to two lists 
prepared by the Secretariat.  The first (G/TBT/C S/1/Add.11) compiled the standardizing bodies that 
had accepted the Code in the period under revi ew and the second (G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.13 and Corr.1) 
compiled all the standardizing bodies that ha d accepted the Code since 1 January 1995.   
123. The Committee took note  of this information.  
V. UPDATING BY OBSERVERS 
124. The representatives of the Codex  (G/TBT/GEN/51), IEC31 and OIML  (G/TBT/GEN/49) 
updated the Committee on relevant activities they were undertaking.   
VI. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 
125. Pursuant to Article 13.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Committee elected  Mr. Raminder Sidhu 
(India) as the Chairperson of the TBT Committee.  
VII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 
126. The next regular meeting of the Commi ttee will take place on 5-6 July 2007.  
__________ 
 
                                                      
29 More relevant information could be found at: http:/chinawto.mofcom.gov.cn. 
30 A Room Document was provided. 
31 A Room Document entitled "IEC Report to WTO/TBT Committee" (March 2007), was provided.