RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/TBT/M/5
19September 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3685)
Committee onTechnical Barriers toTrade
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON28JUNE 1996
Chairperson: Ambassador C.L.Guarda (Chile)
1. TheWTO Committee onTechnical Barriers toTrade helditsfifthmeeting on
28June1996.
2. Thefollowing agenda, contained inWTO/AIR/359, wasadopted:
Page
A. Request forObserver Status bytheUnited Nations Economic
Commission forEurope 2
B. Implementation andAdministration oftheAgreement under
Article 15.2byMembers 2
C. Notification Format under Article 10.7oftheAgreement 3
D. Technical Assistance 4
E. Initial Exchange ofViews toPrepare forSubstantive Discussion on
Article 12.10 attheCommittee 'sAutumn Meeting 6
F. Reporting Procedures fortheSingapore Ministerial Conference 7
G. Statements onImplementation andAdministration oftheAgreement 8
H. Presentation bytheRepresentative from theInternational Laboratory
Accreditation Conference 11
I. Decisions andRecommendations onConformity Assessment Procedures 12
J. Eco-labelling 12
K. Other Business 17G/TBT/M/5
Page2
A. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS BYTHE UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC
COMMISSION FOR EUROPE
3. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed interest inthework ofthe
United Nations Economic Commission forEurope. Sherequested theUN/ECE foradditional
information atthenextCommittee meeting toclarify therules ofregional Commissions, therules
ofparticipation andtherelationship andpotential overlapping between UN/ECE andother relevant
forainthework ofstandard making. Shedrew attention toanumber ofstandard activities
undertaken bytheUN/ECE regional Commissions andthought thatsome ofthem might beat
present, outofreality. Sherecalled thattheTBTAgreement encouraged Members touse
international standards andtoparticipate intheirpreparation. TheUnited States hadbeenactive
asanobserver intheUN/ECE Working Party 29.However, duetobudget considerations and
other reasons, theUSwasseeking aneffort toexpand thework there tobecome trulyinternational
innature. Shedrew attention toa1958 agreement under theUN/ECE onmutual recognition of
motor vehicle safety regulations andsaidthattheUSwasinterested inexpanding theterms of
participation ofthatagreement toallow ittodevelop intoaglobal regulation rather thana
European based one.
4. TheChairperson saidthattheUnited States 'comments would beconveyed tothe
UN/ECE. TheCommittee agreed togrant observer status totheUnited Nations Economic
Commission forEurope onanadhocbasis, pending finalagreement onguidelines forobserver
status forinternational intergovernmental organizations intheWTO.
B. IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OFTHE AGREEMENT UNDER
ARTICLE 15.2BYMEMBERS
5. TheChairperson reminded thatunder Article 15.2oftheWTO TBTAgreement, each
Member should promptly inform theCommittee ofmeasures inexistence ortaken toensure the
implementation andadministration oftheAgreement intheform ofwritten statements. Shedrew
attention todocument G/TBT/1/Rev.3 which contained decisions onthecontents ofthese
statements adopted bytheCommittee. Shenoted thatashadbeenagreed atthelastCommittee
meeting, shehadsentreminders atthebeginning ofMaytoMembers from whom statements had
stillnotbeenreceived. Sheinformed theCommittee that29Members hadsubmitted their
statements (G/TBT/2 andaddenda). Shefound thesituation disappointing andpreoccupying due
tothefactthatthestatements were oneofthemain indicators ofimplementation oftheAgreement
byMembers andoneofthemain elements tobereported onattheSingapore Ministerial Meeting
inDecember. Sheurged onceagain Members, especially those whohadbeensignatories tothe
Tokyo Round TBTAgreement, tosubmit theirstatements under Article 15.2aspromptly as
possible.
6. Therepresentative ofCuba informed theCommittee thatCuba hadsubmitted itsstatement
onimplementation andadministration oftheAgreement on19June(G/TBT/2/Add.13) andthat
theNational Bureau ofStandards ofCuba hadaccepted theCode ofGood Practice forthe
Preparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards (Annex 3oftheAgreement).
7. Therepresentative ofMexico informed theCommittee thatherdelegation hadsubmitted
itsstatement andhoped thatitwould becirculated toMembers shortly.
8. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities shared thepreoccupation ofthe
Chairperson. Hedrew attention totheECstatement (G/TBT/2/Add.12) andexplained thatit
included three parts. Thefirstpartcontained thebasic information asrequired, withabrief
explanation onhowthesystem oftheEuropean Communities worked asregard totherespectiveG/TBT/M/5
Page3
activities ofMember states andthose oftheEuropean Commission. HesaidthatWTO Members
might receive notifications directly from Member states ontheirnational regulations which hadno
EClevelrequirements andfrom theCommission onregulations attheEClevel. However, in
bothcases, anyfollow upactivities should bedonewithandthrough theCommission. The
second partprovided information onenquiry points andresponsibilities inMember states. He
saidthatthere would beacorrigendum toprovide more detailed information, inparticular
concerning Austria. Thethirdpartcontained anannex providing information ontheEuropean
system, suchasthedistinction between mandatory technical regulations andvoluntary standards
andbetween areas where there were ECrules andareas where there were none. There hadbeen
amechanism fortransparency andcoordination since 1983 toprevent barriers totrade among
Member states. Theannex alsodescribed theoverall concept ofconformity assessment inEurope
-theglobal approach andtheCEmarking forproducts, andprovided explanation onhow
standards were developed under theEuropean Standardizing Bodies: CEN, CENELEC andETSI.
Heinformed theCommittee thatallthree oftheEuropean Standardizing Bodies hadaccepted the
Code ofGood Practice (Annex 3oftheAgreement).
9. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthatNorway hadprepared itsstatement under
Article 15.2andthatitwould besubmitted totheSecretariat (G/TBT/2/Add.15).
10. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
C. NOTIFICATION FORMAT UNDER ARTICLE 10.7OFTHE AGREEMENT
11. TheChairperson drew attention toArticle 10.7oftheAgreement that"Whenever a
Member hasreached anagreement withanyother country orcountries onissues related to
technical regulations, standards orconformity assessment procedures which mayhaveasignificant
effect ontrade, atleastoneMember party totheagreement shallnotify other Members through
theSecretariat oftheproducts tobecovered bytheagreement andinclude abriefdescription of
theagreement." Sherecalled thatatthelastmeeting, theCommittee hadrequested theSecretariat
toprepare adraftnotification format under Article 10.7forconsideration. Shedrew attention to
thedraftformat contained indocument G/TBT/W/25 andproposed foritsadoption.
12. Therepresentatives oftheUnited States, theEuropean Communities andJapan supported
theadoption ofthedraftformat.
13. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recalled thatduring theUruguay Round
negotiations, ithadbeenoneoftheUSinterests toobtain information from Members onmutual
recognition agreements (MRAs) reached atagovernmental level. Shethought thatitwould be
useful toreceive notifications under Article 10.7because currently there wasnocompendium
containing suchinformation. Sheinformed theCommittee thattheUnited States hadbeen
engaged inmutual recognition negotiations withtheEuropean Union andwasprepared tonotify at
theappropriate moment.
14. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities thought thatArticle 10.7should be
interpreted aslimited toagreements intheareaofproduct related matters andnotinclude those
withbroader intentions, suchastechnical assistance orregulatory cooperation. Hesaidthathis
delegation wasundergoing mutual recognition negotiations withAustralia, Canada, Japan,
NewZealand, Switzerland andtheUnited States andwould notify when theMRAs were
concluded.
15. TheCommittee agreed toadopt theformat contained inG/TBT/W/25 fornotifications
under Article 10.7oftheAgreement.G/TBT/M/5
Page4
16. TheChairperson informed theCommittee thaton19March shehadreceived aletter from
theChairman oftheWorking Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures regarding the
question ofthescope forsimplification ofdatarequirements andthestandardization offormats.
Theitemwould bethesubject offurther discussions intheWorking Group. However, ithad
beensuggested thatitmight alsobeusefully discussed intheconcerned Committees where there
might beagreater concentration ofspecialized knowledge onthese matters. Shesaidthatinher
view, theformats which hadbeendeveloped tomeetthevarious notification requirements under
theTBTAgreement hadbeenreviewed regularly attheCommittee meetings andatmeetings on
Procedures forInformation Exchange. Members hadthroughout beenconscious oftheneednot
tooverburden national administrations withnotification requirements andtoavoid atallcosts
seeking information going beyond whatwasabsolutely necessary forthefunctioning ofthe
TBTAgreement. However, Members were welcome tocommunicate totheSecretariat their
views, ifany,on(i)theidentification ofanyformats currently inusewhich seekinformation
going beyond thespecific requirements oftherelevant agreement and(ii)suggestions astoany
additional areas where formats could bedeveloped. Shesaidthatifnecessary, thesubject matter
would beincluded intheagenda ofthenextmeeting.
D. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
17. TheChairperson recalled thattheCommittee hadadopted aDecision on"Technical
Assistance" sothattheprovisions ofArticle 11oftheAgreement could begiven operational
significance (G/TBT/1/Rev.3). Shedrew attention todocument G/TBT/W/26 prepared bythe
Secretariat containing information ontechnical assistance. Sheinformed theCommittee thatthe
Secretariat wasorganizing specialized technical assistance seminars jointly withtheISOandITC
whohadcomplementary technical assistance objectives instandards-related work. In1996,
twosub-regional seminars ofthiskindwere being planned: inNovember, forthesouthern
African countries andinDecember, forcentral American countries. Invitations andfurther
information oftheseminars would besenttoMembers concerned. ShesaidthattheSecretariat
wasalsolooking intothepossibilities ofcoordinating itstechnical assistance activities with
Members andother international andregional intergovernmental bodies which were planning to
provide technical assistance toother Members andthatMembers were welcome tocontact the
Secretariat foranypossible jointefforts intechnical assistance.
18. Therepresentative ofCanada informed theCommittee thataregional seminar onthe
implementation oftheTBTAgreement would beheldinMontevideo inSeptember 1996. Hesaid
thatinformation would beavailable tointerested Members.
19. Therepresentative oftheUnited States thanked theWTO Secretariat, Australia, Canada,
Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, NewZealand andthePhilippines fortheirpresentations atthe
Seminar onImplementation oftheUruguay Round TBTAgreement heldinManila inMay1996.
Shesaidthat115participants from 17APEC economies attended theseminar andencouraged
future activities ofthisnature.
20. Therepresentative ofEgypt welcomed theSecretariat 'seffort andcoordination of
technical assistance activities withother organizations. Referring toparagraph 3ofG/TBT/W/26,
hethought thatsome ofthegoals andobjectives listed, e.g.,assisting Members tosetupenquiry
points, fulfil notification obligations andestablish standardizing bodies andconformity assessment
systems might bebetter achieved byother means andmodes thanbyregional orsub-regional
seminars. Hesuggested thattheSecretariat lookintoother possibilities.
21. Therepresentative ofVenezuela welcomed thedocument andseminars being prepared by
theSecretariat incooperation withISOandITC. However, hethought thattheSecretariat 'sG/TBT/M/5
Page5
technical assistance activities coordinating withMembers orregional intergovernmental bodies
should notdictate itsin-house efforts andpossibilities. Hesupported theEgyptian proposal on
considering other modes oftechnical assistance. Referring totheCommittee 'sDecision on
"Technical Assistance", hesaidthatwhile technical assistance provided onabilateral basis was
always welcomed, mutilateralization should bethegoal. Henoted thatintheEnglish version of
theDecision: "...Whilst information would bemultilateralized inthismanner, technical
assistance would continue tobeprovided onabilateral basis.", theword "would" wasused. It
would mean thattechnical assistance provided onabilateral basis wasnota"must" condition. He
requested thatthesame wording beusedintheSpanish version oftheDecision.
22. TheChairperson explained thattheSecretariat wasflexible inextending technical
assistance informs other thanseminars, subject toavailable financial andhuman resources. She
saidthattheSecretariat wasready tohelpdelegations solving related problems, routine or
specific, which could bedealtwithinGeneva. Inorder toavoid duplication andduetothe
limited resources available, there hadbeenacoordination effort inthetechnical cooperation
activities. Shesaidthattheseminar mentioned byCanada would beparticipated bya
representative oftheSecretariat.
23. Therepresentative ofDjibouti raised concerns thattheCommittee 'sDecision on
"Technical Assistance" didnotmention technical assistance activities provided toleast-developed
country Members.
24. TheChairperson explained thatwhen providing technical assistance todeveloping
countries wasmentioned, theleast-developed countries were included. Shenoted thatinthe
Secretariat, there wasaspecific programme providing technical assistance totheleast-developed
countries. Shedrew attention toArticle 11oftheAgreement "Technical Assistance toOther
Members". Article 11.8saidthat: "Inproviding advice andtechnical assistance toother
Members interms ofparagraphs 1to7,Members shallgivepriority totheneeds oftheleast-
developed country Members." Shethought thattheconcern raised waswellcovered bythetext
ofthose provisions. Sheproposed thatthewording ofArticle 11.8beadded totheCommittee 's
Decision on"Technical Assistance".
25. Therepresentative ofAustralia supported theChairperson 'sviewthatwhen providing
technical assistance todeveloping countries wasmentioned, theleast-developed countries were
included.
26. Therepresentative ofCuba supported theChairperson 'sproposal.
27. Therepresentative ofMorocco supported theChairperson 'sproposal. However, hedrew
attention toArticle 12.7oftheAgreement: "...Indetermining theterms andconditions ofthe
technical assistance, account shallbetaken ofthestage ofdevelopment oftherequesting Members
andinparticular oftheleast-developed country Members." andasked forclarification.
28. TheChairperson explained thatArticle 12.7contained provisions for"Special and
Differential Treatment ofDeveloping Country Members". Thecurrent discussions concerned an
adopted Decision oftheCommittee, referring toArticle 11"Technical Assistance toOther
Members".
29. TheCommittee agreed toaddthefollowing sentence toitsDecision onTechnical
Assistance: "Members willtakeintoaccount theprovisions ofArticle 11.8oftheTBT
Agreement when considering requests fortechnical assistance from theleast-developed country
Members."G/TBT/M/5
Page6
30. Therepresentative from theInternational Trade Centre informed theCommittee ofthe
projects provided bytheITCassisting developing countries forthefollowing upoftheUruguay
Round. Hesaidthattheprojects hadstarted in1996 andwould lastforthree years. The1996
programme included African countries andleast-developed countries. Theprogramme was
prepared inresponse totheneedforinformation ontheUruguay Round Agreements inbusiness
communities ofdeveloping countries andeconomies intransition. Theprogramme included
three main elements: (i)Dissemination ofinformation through twotypes ofseminars: business
guide seminars which covered allWTO Agreements andtechnical workshop focusing onaspecific
Agreement suchastheTBTAgreement, SPSAgreement andAgreement onTextile andClothing,
oraspects onenvironment andtrade, inparticularly eco-labelling andeco-packaging. Ahandbook
"Business Guide totheUruguay Round" summarizing theWTO Agreements hadbeenprepared
jointly byITCwiththeCommonwealth secretariat; (ii)Identification ofpriority andmain needs
forfollow-up actions incountries where seminars andworkshops were taking place; and
(iii)Capacity building through training oflocalresources andexpansion ofdata-base with
background material, suchastechnical notes, leaflets andguides. HesaidthatanITCpaper
providing more information onITC'swork wasavailable atthebackoftheconference room.
31. Therepresentative from theCodex Alimentarius Commission informed theCommittee that
hisorganization located inRome attheFood andAgriculture Organization oftheUnited Nations
headquarters (FAO) had154member countries. Itwasaninter-governmental body established in
1962 toprepare recommended international foodstandards andrelated codes ofpractice. Each
Codex member country hadaCodex Contact Point which received anddisseminated allCodex
documentations andstandards andcoordinated country inputs intoCodex negotiations and
standards development. Codex standards covered basic foodidentity andcomposition, food
labelling, appropriate packaging andother foodquality andsafety factors. Hesaidthatgiven the
international nature ofCodex standards, thequality aspects ofCodex work wasextremely
important totheimplementation oftheTBTAgreement. FAO hadforthepast40years given
technical advice andassistance toitsmember countries onhowtostrengthen foodquality and
safety control systems bygovernments, foodproducers, processors andmarketers. Thisadvice
andassistance helped countries toassure thatdomestic andexport foodsupplies metbasic quality
andsafety requirements ofCodex standards andreduced international trade problems. Hedrew
attention toapaper onCodex andFAO technical assistance programmes which hadbeenmade
available atthemeeting. Among other things, thepaper gavedetails onaseries of
14seminars andworkshops heldjointly withtheWTO orasapreliminary toCodex meetings to
explain therelationships between Codex work andtheSPSandTBTAgreements. Hesaidthatin
thisregard, FAO waspleased tooffer itsfullcooperation withtheWTO, either through
participation intechnical seminars orthrough more in-depth technical assistance projects on
country andregional levels.
32. Therepresentative from theISOsaidthatISO/DEVCO (ISOprogrammes fordeveloping
countries) waspleased tocooperate withtheWTO andITCintechnical cooperation activities.
33. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
E. INITIAL EXCHANGE OFVIEWS TOPREPARE FOR SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION
ONARTICLE 12.10 ATTHE COMMITTEE 'SAUTUMN MEETING
34. TheChairperson drew attention toaletter shehadreceived on10May1996 from the
Chairman oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods regarding arequest from theChairman ofthe
Committee onTrade andDevelopment forinformation onwork undertaken toimplement the
special provisions intheTBTAgreement fordeveloping countries. Shesaidthatshehadplaced
ontheagenda ofthismeeting anitemregarding Article 12.10 oftheAgreement that:G/TBT/M/5
Page7
"The Committee shallexamine periodically thespecial anddifferential treatment, aslaiddown in
thisAgreement, granted todeveloping country Members onnational andinternational levels."
Sheproposed thattheCommittee agree toconduct suchanexamination atitsnextmeeting in
October.
35. TheCommittee agreed toconduct atitsnextmeeting, aperiodic examination under
Article 12.10 oftheAgreement onthespecial anddifferential treatment granted todeveloping
country Members. TheChairperson would respond totheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade in
Goods onthedevelopment ofthisissue.
F. REPORTING PROCEDURES FOR THE SINGAPORE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
36. TheChairperson recalled thaton16April 1996, theChairman oftheGeneral Council had
made astatement concerning reporting procedures forSubsidiary Bodies oftheGeneral Council to
theMinisterial Conference (WT/L/145). Ithadbeenrecognized thateachStanding Body ofthe
WTO should decide ontheformat ofthereport which itdeemed most appropriate for
consideration ofrelevant issues bythesuperior Body. Ithadbeensuggested thatthereport should
include atleastthefollowing elements: (i)implementation oftheAgreement; (ii)progress
concerning work under theBuilt-in Agenda; and(iii)anindication asappropriate ofissues and
problems which hadbeenidentified andrecommendations ifany. Shesaidthatinorder to
facilitate discussions andbased ontherecommendations contained indocument WT/L/145, the
Secretariat hadidentified indocument G/TBT/W/27 possible items tobeincluded intheReport of
theTBTCommittee. Shenoted thatinorder toenable theGeneral Council toadopt itsreport to
theMinisterial Conference on7November, theTBTCommittee would needtoadopt itsown
report atitsmeeting on16October intimetosubmit itforconsideration totheCouncil forTrade
inGoods atitsmeeting on1November. Inviewofthetightschedule andthetimeneeded to
prepare theReport, Members hadbeenrequested toprovide suggestions, ifany,concerning the
format andcontent oftheReport oftheTBTCommittee atthismeeting. Anyfurther suggestions
should besubmitted before theendofAugust sothatenough timewould beprovided for
discussions, ifneeded, andthatadraftReport could beprepared andcirculated toMembers atthe
beginning ofOctober forconsideration andadoption attheCommittee meeting on16October.
37. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities welcomed including intheReport
elements regarding theCode ofGood Practice forthePreparation, Adoption andApplication of
Standards. Heindicated thathisdelegation might putforward proposals onapossible work
programme for1997, focusing ontheimplementation oftheCode ofGood Practice anditseffects
oninternational standards ormutual recognition agreements.
38. Therepresentative ofCanada suggested thatdiscussions ofeco-labelling being carried out
inmeetings oftheTBTCommittee andCommittee onTrade andEnvironment, whether jointly or
separately, beincluded intheReport under paragraph 3(c)"Main issues being discussed atthe
Committee meetings", given thefactthatthere hadbeenapositive dynamic created inthe
discussions ofbothfora. Hesaidthathisdelegation might come backwithsome specific
suggestions regarding thetriennial review oftheAgreement, listing outsome themes suchas
equivalence andconformity assessment.
39. Therepresentative oftheUnited States thought theoutline indocument G/TBT/W/27 was
comprehensive. Sheproposed toinclude thestatus ofimplementation ofArticle 10.7inthe
Report, since therelated notification format hadbeenadopted bytheCommittee. Sheindicated
thatherdelegation would submit further suggestions.G/TBT/M/5
Page8
40. Therepresentative ofJapan supported theitems under paragraph 3ofG/TBT/W/27.
However, hesaidthattheReport should beonafactual basis. Hesuggested thatalistshould be
presented, indicating thenumber ofnotifications made under Articles 2.9.2, 2.10.1, 3.2,5.6.2,
5.7.1 and7.2byMembers andbyArticles.
41. Therepresentative ofAustralia welcomed document G/TBT/W/27 andthought thatitwas
comprehensive. Heindicated thathisdelegation would submit further suggestions.
42. Therepresentative ofArgentina asked iftheitemon"Decisions andRecommendations
adopted bytheCommittee" included recommendations attheMinisterial level. Hequestioned its
relationship withpoint (iii)indocument WT/L/145 "anindication asappropriate ofissues and
problems which havebeenidentified andrecommendations ifany", inparticular withrespect to
deadlines fornotifications.
43. TheChairperson explained thatifthere were anyspecial recommendations adopted atthe
ministerial level, proposals would havetobemade. Forexample, ifthefactual partoftheReport
showed thatacertain number ofdelegations hadnotfulfilled theirnotification obligations, a
recommendation might betaken tourgeMembers tocomply withallnotification obligations under
theAgreement. However, before itcould bedone, proposals would beneeded. Shethought that
theexisting structure ofthedocument would allow theincorporation ofanyfurther suggestions by
Members, including recommendations adopted attheministerial level.
44. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torequest theSecretariat to
draw upadraftCommittee Report totheSingapore Ministerial Conference forconsideration and
adoption atitsnextmeeting. Anyfurther suggestions byMembers would besubmitted before the
endofAugust.
G. STATEMENTS ONIMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OFTHE
AGREEMENT
45. Therepresentative ofCanada raised concern about thepotential adverse trade effect ofa
ECRegulation (EC) No.1107/96 dated 12June1996 relating totheregistration ofgeographical
indications anddesignations oforigin under theprocedure laiddown inArticle 17oftheCouncil
Regulation (EEC) No.2081/92. Hisdelegation understood thattheRegulation hadbeenrecently
adopted bytheCommission. Theformal registration process ofsome 318product names had
beencompleted withthepublication oftheEU'sOfficial Journal of12June1996. Theproducts
inquestion represented onlyaninitial listandmore than1400 product names were currently under
consideration forprotection under therelevant EUmeasure. Hesaidthatthiscould prevent the
export ofproducts from Canada using these names, eveniftheproducts clearly indicate their
geographical origin soastoavoid misleading thepublic. Hesaidthatthescope oftheimpact was
difficult todetermine intheabsence ofacomplete listofproducts tobecovered bythe
Regulation.
46. Herecalled thatCanada hadwritten totheECinearly Mayexpressing concern onthe
issue andseeking confirmation oftheCommission 'sintention tonotify themeasure under
Article 2.9oftheAgreement. Heregretted thatnoresponse hadbeenreceived andno
opportunity hadbeenprovided foradvance knowledge oftheproposed regulation "atanearly
appropriate stage when amendments canstillbeintroduced andcomments taken intoaccount".
Hequestioned about thestatus oftheregulation andtheprocess bywhich Canada 'sconcerns
could beregistered.G/TBT/M/5
Page9
47. Therepresentative ofNewZealand shared theconcern expressed byCanada. Hesaidthat
hisauthorities hadbeenfollowing theissue withinterest asNewZealand hadforseveral years
beennegotiating withtheECanagreement ontrade inwine. Hesaidthatconsiderable progress
hadbeenmade since NewZealand wasprepared tooffer comprehensive protection forEC
geographical indications which wentbeyond anyother countries andthose provided under the
TRIPs Agreement.
48. Therepresentative ofAustralia informed theCommittee thaton-going bilateral discussions
hadbeentaking place between hisauthorities andtheEC. Heshared theconcerns expressed by
Canada andNewZealand andrequested information onthelistofproducts covered bythe
ECRegulation.
49. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthequestion of"Appellation
d'origin" wasagreyareamatter because itlooked likelabelling requirements under the
TBTAgreement, butatthesame timemight fallintothecoverage oftheTRIPs Agreement.
Legal clarification ontheissue wasunder wayandnecessary steps would betaken iftheresult
indicated thattheissue related totheTBTAgreement. Heexplained thatbecause therequests for
information byother Members hadbeensenttoother ECagencies rather thantheECenquiry
point, ithadcaused some delay inreplying. However, information would beprovided shortly, in
particular onthelistofproducts covered bytheRegulation.
50. Therepresentative ofCanada welcomed theinformation provided bytheEC
representative. Helooked forward totheresult oftheEC'sreview andhoped thatitwould take
intoaccount theCanadian comments.
51. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities drew attention toaTBTnotification
G/TBT/Notif.95.336 concerning Canadian sidedoorstrength testformotor vehicles. His
delegation hadmade comments ontheCanadian regulation suggesting thattheproposed testdid
notrepresent thetechnical characteristics oftheactual accident forwhich itwould serve. He
questioned whether Canada wastocontinue using theproposed testortofollow other tests, such
asthose available inEurope.
52. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathenoticed from thework ofUN/ECE Working
Party 29thatcrash impact testsbetween North America andEurope were contentious. Hesaid
thathewould come backwithfurther information.
53. Therepresentative oftheUnited States drew attention totwoissues concerning standards
intheEuropean Communities which shethought were usedastechnical barriers totrade tokeep
outcompetition ofimporting products. Thefirstonerelated togasconnection valves which aUS
company hadbeenselling successfully totheECuntil1988 when ECmember states progressively
introduced national standards based onrequirements interms ofdesign rather thanonperformance
orsafety. Asaresult, theproducts hadtoobtain approval foreachECmarket andcould not
meetthose design based standards. Shenoted thatatonetime, gasconnection valves hadbeen
thought tobecovered bytheECGasSuppliance Directive andrelevant CEmarks hadbeenissued
bytheBritish Standards Institution (BSI). However, laterasuggestion hadbeenmade byoneof
theMember stateproducers thattheECDirective didnotcover suchproducts andthesuggestion
hadbeensubsequently agreed bytheEuropean Commission. Asaresult, BSIhadtowithdraw the
CEmarks from theproducts notforsafety reasons since theproducts hadpassed allthesafety
tests, butforthereason thattheproducts didnotmeetthedesign based requirements.
54. Sherecalled thatnumerous contacts hadbeenapproached byherauthorities withthe
Commission anditsmember states ongovernment andstandardizing body levels. Shenoted thatG/TBT/M/5
Page10
theUSproducts were atpresent approved inBelgium andprogress hadbeenmade inthe
negotiations withBSItomodify andremove design requirements from theUKstandard sothatthe
USproducts would beallowed ontheUKmarket. However, afteryears ofwork onthesubject,
sheunderstood thatCEN hadnowformed atechnical committee tolookintothepossibility of
developing arelevant standard attheEuropean level. ShesaidthatthisCEN standard would be
based ontheMember state'sstandard which contained design requirements. Shenoted thatthe
USandother WTO Members were restricted toparticipate inthedevelopment ofCEN standards
andthatitwasdifficult toobtain timely information. Shequestioned thedevelopment of
ECregional standards withrelation toECmember states'national standards andifMember states
would havetorevise theirnational standards accordingly aftertheadoption ofrelevant
ECregional standards. Sheunderstood thatoncearegional standard hadstarted tobedeveloped
atEClevel, there would beastandstill forMember states nottointroduce anynewrequirements
ormake anychanges torelated national standards.
55. Shenoted theobligations under theAgreement thatMembers should, wherever
appropriate, specify theirmandatory technical regulations orvoluntary standards based onproduct
requirements interms ofperformance rather thandesign characteristics andthatrelevant
international standards should betaken intoconsideration. Shesaidthatinthiscase, therelevant
international standard wasbased onsafety considerations. Shesought cooperation from theEC
anditsMember states toconsider revising thestandards insuchawaythattheycomply withthe
obligations oftheAgreement. Herauthorities would continue theirefforts sothatthedesign
based requirements would beremoved from those standards. Shesaidthatfurther information
regarding theissue could beprovided byherdelegation tointerested Members.
56. Thesecond issue concerned adraftEuropean CEN Standard PREN 544dated June1994
forasphalt shingles. Shesaidthataccording toUSindustries, thedraftstandard wasmoving to
thefinaldraftstage withvoting anticipated within amonth. Thestandard wasnotbased on
performance anddurability requirements anditskeycriteria which wastheamount ofasphalt per
square meter would berevised insuchawaythatUSshingles would notbeabletomeet. She
sought information from theECbilaterally orthrough theCommittee.
57. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatitwasapositive approach that
CEN wasstarting todevelop thecommon European standard forallMember states. Ifthere was
aCEN standard inexistence, bylawallrelevant national standards hadtobewithdrawn. The
work ofCEN involved national standardizing bodies ofMembers states andoncework
commenced inCEN whether mandated bytheCommission orinitiated byCEN, nonational
standardizing body would continue towork ontherelated standards. HesaidthatCEN had
accepted theCode ofGood Practice forthePreparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards
andthereby CEN would comply withtheobligations oftheCode. Transparency would be
increased andCEN would, when appropriate, specify standards based onproduct requirements in
terms ofperformance rather thandesign ordescriptive characteristics.
58. Therepresentative oftheUnited States thought thestandstill situation ofstandards
development within theECnotacceptable andsaidthatshewould come backtothisissue.
59. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities drew attention totwonotifications made
bytheUnited States: G/TBT/Notif.96.20 onCareLabelling ofTextiles andG/TBT/Notif.96.46
onTeaStandards. Henoted thatthere were related ISOstandards inexistence: ISO37.20 fortea
andISO37.58 fortextile labelling. Hequestioned whythose ISOstandards were notusedinthe
USdraftregulations.G/TBT/M/5
Page11
60. Therepresentative oftheUnited States explained thatherauthorities hadconsidered using
therelevant ISOstandard forcarelabelling oftextile. However, theISOstandard posed some
difficulties because ofitscopyright provisions. Sheinformed thatthere hadbeenon-going
discussions ontheissue andshewould provide further clarification.
61. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
H. PRESENTATION BYTHE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
LABORATORY ACCREDITATION CONFERENCE (ILAC)
62. TheChairperson recalled thatatthelastmeeting, shehadproposed thatarepresentative
from theILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Conference) beinvited togivea
presentation atthismeeting informing theCommittee ofthelatest developments inthework of
ILAC regarding conformity assessment systems before theCommittee started discussions onits
recommendations relating toconformity assessment procedures.
63. Therepresentative from theILAC explained thenecessity ofaccreditation inthefieldof
conformity assessment. Inthemarket place, firstly: consumers andregulatory authorities put
requirements andexpectations onproducts andproducers, secondly: independent checks were
performed toensure consumers andauthorities thatproducts andproducers fulfil therequirements
andthirdly: accreditation bodies supervised thework ofconformity assessment operators
(laboratories, certification bodies andinspections bodies). Accreditation bodies ensured that
conformity assessment operators were competent, thattheyperformed theirwork inasimilar, if
notidentical way, andthattheintegrity andquality oftheirwork were notjeopardized bythe
economic competition towhich theywere subject to.Inorder todotheirtasks well, accreditation
bodies should notwork incompetition. Forthatreason, most countries hadappointed one
national accreditation body. Inorder tofacilitate international trade byonestoptesting,
inspection orcertification, itwasnecessary thatallnational accreditation bodies operated inthe
same way, following thesame standards andprocedures.
64. Hesaidthatthiswaswhere ILAC came intothepicture. ILAC hadbeenexisting since
1977 acting asacooperation onamultilateral levelamong accreditation bodies forlaboratories
andtoacertain extent, inspection bodies. Currently, ILAC hadover40members andwas
undergoing arestructuring phase. InSeptember 1996, itswould change itstitleintoInternational
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation andwould become amore formal international organization
withnational accreditation bodies asmembers. ILAC would havestrong liaisons withits
stakeholder suchastheWTO, international consumer organizations, laboratory organizations and
standardizing bodies. Oneofthemain aimsofILAC wastoharmonize accreditation procedures
andtoassist developing countries tosetupnational accreditation schemes, ifrequired. Fordoing
so,ILAC would make useofregional accreditation cooperations suchastheEuropean
Cooperation forAccreditation ofLaboratories (EAL) andAsian Pacific Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (APLAC).
65. Henoted thatsince 1994, ILAC hadasister organization IAF(International Accreditation
Forum) which wasestablished forthecooperation between accreditation bodies inthefieldof
certification. IAFwasstructured inasimilar waytothatofILAC. Hebelieved thatwithin afew
years, bothorganizations would become onesince similar exercises hadbeentaking place ona
national level. Hethought thatwhen allnational accreditation bodies under ILAC andIAFwere
established towork inthesame way, itwould bepossible forproducts togothrough conformity
assessment procedures inonecountry withtheresults being accepted inother countries without
anynewconformity assessment. Harmonization andacceptance would reduce production costs
andinthisrespect ISO,ILAC andIAFwould provide themechanisms. Articles 5.4and5.5ofG/TBT/M/5
Page12
theTBTAgreement provided disciplines forharmonization ofconformity assessment procedures,
including accreditation procedures. Articles 6oftheAgreement encouraged mutual recognition of
conformity assessment which hadbeenthedriving force ofthework inILAC. With respect to
Article 9,thenewILAC would make useofexisting regional systems andstimulate formation of
newones.
I. DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ONCONFORMITY ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES
66. TheChairperson noted thatunder Articles 5.4and6.1.1 oftheAgreement, Members were
encouraged touserelevant guides orrecommendations issued byinternational standardizing bodies
asabasis fortheirconformity assessment procedures andasanindication ofadequate technical
competence oftherelevant conformity assessment bodies when reaching mutual recognition
agreements withother Members. Sherecalled thatatthelastmeeting, arepresentative from the
ISOhadbeeninvited togiveapresentation onthelatest developments inISOandIECwork
relating torules andguides inconformity assessment activities (G/TBT/M/4). Some ofthe
ISO/IEC guides mentioned might berelevant toArticles 5.4and6.1.1.
67. Shenoted thattheTokyo Round TBTCommittee hadrecognized three ISO/IEC Guides on
testing andinspection activities andrecommended theiruse. They were: (i)ISO/IEC Guides 25-
General Requirements fortheCompetence ofCalibration andTesting Laboratories; (ii)Guide 39
-General Requirements fortheAcceptance ofInspection Bodies; and(iii)Guide 43-
Development andOperation ofLaboratory Proficiency Testing. Sheproposed thattheCommittee
consider ifitwasnecessary toadopt therelevant recommendations taken bytheTokyo Round
TBTCommittee on"Testing, Inspection andType Approval" ascontained indocument
G/TBT/W/14.
68. Regarding theother ISO/IEC Guides mentioned inG/TBT/M/4, sheproposed thatthe
Committee consider setting upasmall technical group tostudy iftheymight contribute tofurther
theobjectives ofArticles 5and6oftheAgreement. Shesuggested thattheCommittee reflect on
thisandcome tothenextmeeting prepared todiscuss hertwoproposals.
69. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatement made.
70. Inrelation totheDecisions andRecommendations taken bytheTokyo Round
TBTCommittee, sherecalled thattheCommittee hadhelddiscussions ontheDecision onanad
hocarrangement withtheFAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission on"Avoidance of
Duplication" (G/TBT/W/14) andtheitemhadbeenleftpending (G/TBT/M/4). Shesaidthat
following herinformal contacts withinterested delegations, sheproposed thattheCommittee
consider theDecision nolonger necessary.
71. TheCommittee agreed thattheDecision taken bytheTokyo Round TBTCommittee on
"Avoidance ofDuplication" wasnolonger necessary.
J. ECO-LABELLING
72. TheChairperson recalled thattheissue ofeco-labelling hadbeentaken upatvarious
meetings oftheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment. AttheCTE meeting of20-21 June1996,
there hadbeenaproposal forajointformal/informal meeting oftheCTE andtheTBTCommittee
tobeheldon24-25 July1996 tofurther pursue discussions oneco-labelling.G/TBT/M/5
Page13
73. Therepresentative ofCanada recalled thathisdelegation hadmade asubstantive
intervention andproposal oneco-labelling atthe20-21 JuneCTE meeting. Given thatthefocus
ofdiscussions oneco-labelling inboththeCTE andCTBT hadbeentheTBTcoverage of
eco-labelling programmes, herequested thattheCanadian intervention made atthelast
CTE meeting beincorporated intotheminutes ofthismeeting.
74. Heoutlined hisdelegation 'sviews onwhatwasattainable inSingapore. Hesaid
eco-labelling programmes were valid environmental policy instruments, which must bedeveloped
andimplemented inaWTO consistent manner. Herecalled theproposed fourprinciples in
Canada 'spaper (WT/CTE/W/21). There wassupport forCanada 'sposition thateco-labelling
programmes were covered bytheTBTAgreement anditstransparency-related disciplines.
However, extending thescope toinclude non-product-related PPMs raised legitimate concerns,
particularly theprecedent thatexplicit recognition could create. Sharing some ofthese concerns,
Canada proposed thescope oftheTBTAgreement onlybeextended forvoluntary programmes.
Recognizing eco-labelling programmes were based onlife-cycle approaches (LCA), resulting
standards were amixture ofcriteria based upon performance, product-related andnon-product-
related PPMs. LCA didnotprejudge thetypeofstandard thatwould emerge. Forexample,
eco-labels forhome appliances generally included performance standards pertaining toenergy or
water use. Product-related PPMs were pesticide residues orfoodadditives. Eco-labels on
products based oneither ofthese standards didnotdiffer from other labels orstandards interms
oftheTBTAgreement. Certain Members felteco-labels based onnon-product-related PPMs were
different. Paper products were anexample, given sustainable forest management. The
development ofproduct criteria through LCA could notpredict exantewhich typeofstandard
would predominate. Asthese programmes became more sophisticated intheiruseofLCA,
criteria would bebased onamixture ofthethree types ofstandards outlined above. Assuch, it
wasnotpractical toseparate coverage ofeco-labelled products based onthenature ofthe
standard. Allcriteria involved ingranting theeco-label should besubject tosimilar disciplines.
75. Hedistinguished between TBTcoverage (i.e.eco-labelling programmes were established
bystandardizing bodies which conferred labels onproducts thatmettheirstandards) andscope
(i.e.whether non-product-related PPMs were within thescope oftheTBTAgreement).
Ambiguous wording ofthedefinition ofstandards intheTBTAgreement leftopenwhether
non-product-related PPMs were within itsscope. Rather thanhaving panels decide, itwas
preferable todiscuss andeventually determine under which circumstances theirusecould occur.
Thiswould provide greater predictability andsecurity tobothexporters andpolicy makers.
Canada hadconsulted withitsbusiness community oneco-labelling. While business leaders did
notlikenon-product-related PPMs, theyacknowledged them tobeamarket reality. Business
already dealtwithsystems involving PPMs, suchasquality management standards (ISO9000),
andenvironmental management standards (ISO14000). Business leaders were more concerned
about transparency andconsultation thanwhether astandard wasbased onnon-product-related
PPMs. Ifthelegitimate concerns ofbusiness were notconsidered, recourse todispute settlement
wasneeded. This"transparency withteeth" wastheessence oftheTBTAgreement. Theconcern
wasthatnon-product-related PPMs reflected onlyparticular domestic technologies and
environmental absorptive capacities. Adherence byeco-labelling programmes totheTBTCode of
Good Practice provided industry withtheassurance theywould know whatwasunder
development, could participate inthedevelopment ofstandards, andthatthese would notbebased
solely ondomestic considerations. Forthisreason, Canada 'sbusiness leaders feltCanada 's
proposal tosubject non-product-related PPMs tomultilaterally-developed criteria wasvalid ifsuch
criteria referred toguiding principles, methodologies andprocedures, rather thanspecific values
orindicators. Multilateral development ofprinciples, methodologies andprocedures wasdistinct
from agreement onindividual standards andwassound onenvironmental andtrade grounds.G/TBT/M/5
Page14
From anenvironmental perspective, agreement ontheformer recognized policy requirements
differed between countries, whereas values orindicators could differ, reflecting sound
environmental andscientific assessment. From atrade perspective, useofcommon methodologies
withexplicit recognition ofdifferent policy requirements wasthebasis forequivalency
approaches, reflected inthepaper bytheCanadian Environmental Choice programme. Canada
hadtriedtooperate Environmental Choice inasleasttrade restrictive amanner aspossible and
hadnotified itunder theTBTAgreement (G/TBT/Notif.96.190).
76. Informal discussions withseveral delegations indicated there wasrecognition theWTO
needed toaddress theissue ofnon-product-related PPMs involuntary eco-labelling programmes.
However, forseveral other delegations discussion ofthisissue required reflection given its
complex nature andpossible repercussions. TheReport should reflect bothviews andreaffirm the
TBTAgreement covered alleco-labelling programmes, without prejudice totheissue ofscope
withrespect tonon-product-related PPMs. Thepost-Singapore agenda should include work onthe
latter issue jointly withtheTBTCommittee (CTBT). Thismeant voluntary eco-labelling
programmes would benotified aspertheCode ofGood Practice andsubject toTBTdisciplines
related tostandards andvoluntary labelling programmes. Canada would work tosecure
agreement onpoints (a),(b),and(c)ofitsproposal withconsideration ofpoint (d)post-Singapore
andwould circulate adraftDecision prior totheJulyCTE meeting. Henoted thattheCanadian
intervention wasessentially proposing toaddress thetransparency andrelated issues of
eco-labelling bytheSingapore Ministerial Conference andtoconsider thedifficult issue of
non-product related PPMs withthepost-Singapore work programme.
77. InCanada 'sview, discussions ofeco-labelling intheWTO should occur inacoordinated
andintegrated manner andthatthesubject matter could notbeaddressed onlyintheCTE orthe
CTBT. Herecalled thattheCTE'smandate was"tomake appropriate recommendations on
whether anymodifications oftheprovisions ofthemultilateral trading system arerequired ...".
TheCTBT 'smandate wasmore focused onthequestion ofthecoverage oftheTBTAgreement
withrespect toeco-labelling programmes. Thus theCTE could notfulfil itsmandate without
direct input orparticipation oftheTBTCommittee. While theoretically theCTBT could address
eco-labelling independently oftheCTE, inpractical terms thiswasnotviable given thattheCTE
haseco-labelling aspartofitswork programme. Forbothsubstantive andprocess reasons,
Canada hadsought andobtained agreement intheMayCTE Stocktaking thateco-labelling would
bediscussed infuture jointsessions withtheCTBT. Hebelieved thatitwasequally inthe
interest oftheCTBT torespond totheCTE'srequest forfuture jointsessions andthatsuchjoint
discussions were themost sufficient andeffective waytoproceed, ifMembers wished tomake
substantive progress ontheissue ofeco-labelling bytheSingapore Ministerial Conference.
78. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatIndia didnotsubscribe toanyinterpretation ofthe
TBTAgreement which recognized eco-labelling based onlifecycle approaches, incorporating
non-product-related PPMs. Attempts toincorporate thelatter ineco-labels restricted market
access ofdeveloping countries, ledtothefreezing oftechnology, restriction ofproduct choice,
andinflexibility ofstandards. Itundercut thecomparative advantage ofdeveloping countries. If
theTBTCommittee wasgoing tolookattheissue ofeco-labelling atall,itwould beinthearea
oftheimpact ofeco-labelling ontrade, inparticular onthetrade ofdeveloping countries. Article
12oftheTBTAgreement wasrelevant. Itstipulated more favourable treatment forthe"special
development andtrade needs" ofdeveloping countries andaddressed theneedtobuild capacity to
ensure effective market access, provide financial assistance andtransfer know howand
technology. Reference totheTBTAgreement must takeintoaccount theTBTAgreement 's
objective toensure measures suchaslabels didnotcause unnecessary barriers totrade. India
supported thetransparency disciplines ofeco-labelling programmes which, inaddition to
notifications, would alsoallow exporters, especially those from developing countries, toG/TBT/M/5
Page15
participate inthedevelopment ofprogrammes sothattheirlegitimate concerns could be
incorporated. India wasinterested inexamining thepossibility toallow eco-labelling programmes
formultilateral recognition andequivalency which wasimportant toexporters andproducers of
developing countries. Hesaidthatsince thepurpose ofajointmeeting oftheCTBT andCTE at
thisspecific timewasunclear, there wasnoneedtohavethejointsession ofthetwoBodies. His
delegation would consider having jointmeetings, ifthere were urgent issues regarding providing
provisional technical information bytheTBTCommittee totheCTE andthatsuchinformation
andrequest forassistance from theCTE were available.
79. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthathisdelegation hadsupported jointmeetings ofthe
CTBT andCTE andhadbeenparticipating actively indiscussions oneco-labelling. However,
suchinformal jointmeetings could onlybeuseful iftheywere adequately prepared for.Since the
nature andpurpose ofthejointmeeting were notclear andduetotheheavy work loadforboth
theCTBT andCTE preparing fortheSingapore Ministerial Conference, hisdelegation didnot
support ajointmeeting atthispoint intime. Hesaidthatthere were several issues relating to
eco-labelling. Hisdelegation would liketoaddress those issues inabalanced waywithout being
limited totheangle addressed bytheTBTCommittee. Hedidnotshare Canada 'sinterpretation
onthescope oftheTBTAgreement. Theissue wasnothow, butwhether toinclude non-product-
related PPMs.
80. Therepresentative ofKorea shared theviewexpressed byEgypt. Hesaidthatifitwas
agreed alleco-labelling programmes were covered bytheTBTAgreement, thiswould
acknowledge eco-labelling based onnon-product-related standards were within the
TBTAgreement 'sscope. Theissue ofTBTcoverage included thatofitsscope. Assuch, points
(a),(b),and(c)ofCanada 'sproposal could notbeseparated from point (d).Multilaterally-agreed
guidelines were similar totheexanteapproach inItem1.Difficulties hadbeendemonstrated in
defining anMEA reflecting agenuine multilateral consensus. Korea haddifficulty understanding
whatmultilaterally-agreed guidelines meant. Korea would study Canada 'sproposal further.
81. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines, onbehalf ofASEAN, recalled herdelegation
supported thefirstthree points ofCanada 'sproposal. However, ASEAN could notsupport the
interpretation ofthescope oftheTBTAgreement tocover theuseofstandards based on
non-product-related PPMs. Thisissue should notbeaddressed now, norevenpost-Singapore.
Shesupported theviews expressed byIndia andEgypt andrequested forclarification onthe
purpose ofajointmeeting oftheCTBT andCTE atthispoint intime.
82. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthattheproblems ofeco-labelling programmes andthe
needfortheirtransparency were recognized. Itwasuptoeither theTBTCommittee ortheCTE
toresolve theproblems. Hesupported thejointmeeting ofthetwoCommittees.
83. Therepresentative oftheUnited States shared some oftheviews expressed byAustralia.
ShesaidthattheTBTCommittee would continue discussions oneco-labelling. Shethought that
there hadbeenacertain amount ofconsensus about thecoverage ofeco-labelling under the
TBTAgreement except onesensitive element which remained controversial. Shesupported the
jointmeeting tocoordinate discussions andhoped thatthere would belesscross reference of
statements inthefuture forthebenefit ofthose whocould notparticipate inmeetings ofthe
twobodies.
84. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatherdelegation supported points (a)(b)and(c)
oftheCanadian proposal. Labelling ofproduct characteristics orincorporated PPMs andtheir
conformity assessment procedures were covered bytheTBTAgreement, whether elaborated by
governmental ornon-governmental bodies. Switzerland expressed concern onanextensiveG/TBT/M/5
Page16
interpretation oftheTBTAgreement regarding labelling measures covering unincorporated PPMs.
Referring tothedefinition ofstandards andregulations intheTBTAgreement, shesaiditwas
difficult tointerpret theTBTAgreement 'sscope asextending tothese labels, without having the
same interpretation forterminology, symbols, packaging ormarking requirements. AstheCTE
hadnotexamined theconsequences ofsuchaninterpretation, itwasdifficult atthisstage to
extend thescope sobroadly. Given themultiplication oflabelling programmes, theCTE could
examine usefully howtoincrease transparency forvoluntary labelling schemes, including
unincorporated PPMs. Shesaidthatinformation andtransparency were theimportant issues
related tovoluntary labelling andthatitwould bedesirable toreach asolution withaviewto
Singapore.
85. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities emphasized theimportance of
complementing thework oftheTBTCommittee andCTE. HesaidthattheCTE might come toa
conclusion forchanges torules andthatthere might notbeconsensus ontheissue of
non-product-related PPMs. However, acommon vieworsolution intheReports toSingapore
under thetwoCommittees would bedesirable. ThetwoCommittees could goahead preparing
theirReports separately, making surethattheywould becomplementary. Ifthere wasany
discrepancy, thematter might havetoberesolved, forexample, attheleveloftheCouncil for
Trade inGoods. Hedidnotseetheneedforajointmeeting atthemoment duetothefactthat
information exchange hadalready taken place attheprevious jointmeeting.
86. Therepresentative ofVenezuela supported thejointmeeting. Although Venezuela had
serious reservations onnon-product-related PPMs, itconsidered eco-labelling wascovered under
theAgreement. Discussions inthefuture should focus onthetrade impacts ofeco-labelling
schemes, inparticular ondeveloping countries. Hesuggested torefocus effort towards the
schemes, suchasdetailed analysis which might contribute toactual solutions tothePPM
problems. Regarding mutual recognition andequivalency oftheschemes, reference should be
made totheon-going work intheUNCTAD, UNEP andISOexpert groups oneco-labelling. He
invited therepresentative ofISOtoup-date theCommittee onthelatest development ofwork
under ISO/TC207 oneco-labelling.
87. Therepresentative ofMorocco saidthathisdelegation could notaccept point (d)of
Canada 'sproposal. AsIndia said,special anddifferentiated treatment intheTBTAgreement
clarified theposition ofdeveloping countries. TBTprovisions should notbeinterpreted toinclude
LCA orunincorporated PPMs. Herecalled UNIDO 'sResolution inDecember 1995 on
eco-labelling. Account should betaken ofactivities inother international fora. Morocco hadno
objection tothejointmeeting, providing thatthepoints forconsideration atthatmeeting bemade
known inadvance.
88. Therepresentative ofArgentina supported thejointmeeting.
89. Therepresentative from theISOsaidthatmeaningful progress hadbeenmade inthework
ofISO/TC207 onenvironmental management standards attheRiomeeting inJune. Theprocess
indrafting aninternational standard required numerous consultations andithadtobesubmitted to
allISOmembers before thedocument became adraftinternational standard.
90. TheChairperson requested thattheCommittee beinformed when ISO14000 standards
were published.
91. TheCommittee could notreach consensus onapositive reply totheproposal made bythe
CTE forajointformal/informal meeting oftheCTE andCTBT tobeheldon24-25 Julyto
further pursue discussions oneco-labelling. However, theCommittee agreed thattheissue ofG/TBT/M/5
Page17
eco-labelling would bekeptontheagenda ofitsnextmeeting andthere would bea
cross-reference totheCTE discussions intheTBTCommittee minutes.
K. OTHER BUSINESS
92. TheCommittee agreed toholditsnextmeeting on16October 1996.