WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/W/211
25 June 2003
(03-3404)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:  English
THIRD TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
Submission by New Zealand
I. INTRODUCTION
1. New Zealand welcomes the opportunity for Members to participate in the Third Triennial
Review of the TBT Agreement with a view to improving the operation and implementation of the
Agreement.  In past Triennial Reviews, New Zeal and has focused on the wider theme of promoting
good regulatory practice,1 with a particular emphasis on equivalence of standards.2  As a contribution
to the Third Triennial Review, we have already circ ulated a paper on New Zealand’s experience in the
provision of technical assistance and capacity building in the TBT field.3  This paper explores some
further thinking on two areas of relevance to the Third Triennial Review: conformity assessment, and
equivalence of standards.
II. CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT
2. The Second Triennial Review developed an Indicative List of Approaches to Facilitate
Acceptance of the Results of Conformity Assessment.  New Zealand believes that this work should be
built on in order to improve the implementation of the Agreement’s provisions on conformity
assessment.  Improved procedures for recognising c onformity with technical regulations or standards
have the potential to reduce the prospect of confor mity assessment mechanisms leading to the creation
of unnecessary barriers to trade.
3. In this regard, New Zealand would like to stress the importance of Members taking regard of
relevant international standards and guides relating to the preparation, adoption and application of
conformity assessment procedures, as agreed during the First Triennial Review.4  The Committee has
in the past also looked at ways to encourage effective participation by Members in the development of
these international standards and guides, and New Zealand will continue to support efforts in thisregard (including through the provision of appropriate technical assistance and capacity building
initiatives).
4. New Zealand is of the view that the Third Triennial Review could usefully look at ways to
build on the emphasis in Article 6 of the TBT Agreement on accepting the results of conformityassessment procedures in other Members.  It is clear that a vital ingredient in promoting the
recognition of assessment procedures carried out by other Members is building sufficient confidence
in the rigour and efficacy of the systems employed by those Members in assessing conformity.
New Zealand is a strong believer in the value of pursuing mutual recognition of conformity
                                                     
1 Circulated as G/TBT/W/44.
2 Circulated as G/TBT/W/88 and G/TBT/W/145.
3 Circulated as G/TBT/W/203.
4 See document G/TBT/W/72/Rev.4 for the most recent list of relevant international standards and
guides.G/TBT/W/211
Page 2
assessment procedures – we have negotiated Mutual Recognition Agreements and Arrangements with
a number of other Members as provided for under Article 6.3 of the TBT Agreement.  At the same
time, we realise that the conclusion of formal MRAs may not always be the most appropriate means
of accepting the conformity assessment results of other Members, particularly for countries with less
developed technical infrastructure.
5. For that reason, the Third Triennial Review could explore appropriate confidence-building
mechanisms to facilitate acceptance of the conformity assessment results of other Members without
entering into formal MRAs (which can sometimes add to the administrative and financial burdens of
assessing conformity).  This could involve further work on facilitating voluntary cooperative
relationships between domestic and foreign conformity assessment bodies and the use of accreditation
to qualify conformity assessment bodies.  Members could be invited to share experiences of bestpractice in both these areas, and options for strengthening the architecture of accreditation and
voluntary cooperative relationships could be explored.
6. This may also be an area that would benefit from the improved delivery of technical
assistance and capacity building in order to assist  Members in meeting the relevant standards for
accreditation and voluntary cooperation.  International accreditation bodies ILAC and IAF have done
considerable work on encouraging the participation of developing countries in accreditation
frameworks, and have set up a developing economies committee (whose work includes technical
assistance and capacity building), with direct in put from UNIDO.  The Committee may wish to invite
ILAC and IAF to share their experience in this regard.
7. New Zealand also notes the potential for less administratively burdensome procedures
(including recognition of equivalence and Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity) to reduce the costs
and other burdens incurred in the assessment of conformity with relevant technical regulations and
standards.  At the same time, it is important to en sure that correct safeguards are in place to ensure
that the products entering a market comply with the relevant regulations and standards.  Appropriate
incentives for producers/suppliers to comply need to be in place, so as to mitigate any risk of non-
compliance.  The Second Triennial Review suggested that consideration should be given to adequate
market surveillance, substantial penalties for false or misleading declarations, and appropriate
regulatory environment, and an appropriate product liability regime.  Accordingly, New Zealand
suggests that the Committee add to current in formation exchange on the implementation of
conformity assessment systems by inviting Members to share their experiences in the developmentand operation of consumer protection legislation to underpin the relationship between buyer and
seller.
8. Efforts to maximise the potential for conformity assessment procedures to facilitate trade may
also benefit from a better understanding of the practical use of conformity assessment systems.  Astarting point could be to review notifications under Article 5.6 and other relevant transparency
provisions of the TBT Agreement, together with material in other publicly available sources (such as
WTO trade policy reviews) to build up a picture of the existing conformity assessment architecture.
III. EQUIVALENCE OF STANDARDS
9. New Zealand’s previous subm issions on equivalence of standards have highlighted the
potential for differing national standards to create unnecessary obstacles to trade.
5  The concept of
equivalence can assist in reducing these obstacles where international standards do not exist or where
international standards would be ineffective or in appropriate.  However, while Article 2.7 of the
TBT Agreement includes a requirement for Members to give positive consideration to concept of
                                                     
5 G/TBT/W/88 and G/TBT/W/145.G/TBT/W/211
Page 3
equivalence, no such language appears in the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption
and Application of Standards.
10. Previous discussions on equivalence of st andards in the Committee have emphasised that
standards equivalence is particularly relevant where international standards do not exist, and can beuseful interim measures until suitable international standards are made available.  The Second
Triennial Review noted that the possible use of standards equivalence must not hinder the process of
development of international standards, guides and recommendations.  New Zealand agrees that the
development of international standards should be a priority.  But we reiterate our comments on this
issue at the time of the Second Triennial Review
6: there will always be some time lag between the
identification of the need for an international standard and one finally being agreed.  While the
absence of an international standard for any given product should be temporary, the need for anapproach to cope with the situation where intern ational standards have yet to be developed is a
permanent one.
11. In promoting standards equivalence, it is not at all New Zealand’s intention to detract from
the formulation of international standards.  We do not see any conflict between the use of equivalenceand the development of international standards: indeed the former can be an important stepping-stone
towards the latter.  Making use of equivalence in this context can help reduce or remove unnecessary
barriers to trade, by achieving the same regulatory outcome through different means.  It is worth
noting that there has been a move within ISO mo re recently towards declaring specific national,
regional or international standards as equivalent wherever possible rather than setting up one standardas the only option.  The Committee may want to inv ite ISO to share its experience in this regard.
12. At the same time, it is one thing to agree that equivalence of standards is a good idea in
principle, and quite another to operationalise equivalence in practice.  One way for the Committee to
approach the operationalisation of equivalence might be in the broader framework of discussions onregulatory cooperation.  An exchange of national experiences of equivalence in action may help
Members to better understand the circumstances in which such an approach is likely to work.
New Zealand’s first submission on equivalence of standards highlighted the example of the
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA).
7  The TTMRA emerged out of the Closer
Economic Relations Agreement between New Zealand and Australia.  What began as a move to
create mechanisms for regulatory cooperation has in practice provided a useful platform for the
pursuit of equivalence, as it allowed regulators to share experiences and establish mutual confidence.The following case study of electromagnetic compatibility in the TTMRA context is a good example
of equivalence in action.
                                                     
6 G/TBT/W/145.
7 G/TBT/W/88.G/TBT/W/211
Page 4
BOX 1:  THE TTMRA AND ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
When the TTMRA was negotiated, it was acknowledged that there were some areas where the
application of equivalence would be premature, due to substantively different regulatory
objectives and approaches.  It was however recognised that every effort should be made to bringthese areas together through regulatory cooperation programmes.
The Australian Communication Authority (ACA) and the New Zealand Ministry of Economic
Development (MED) have responsibility for electromagnetic compatibility and radio-
communication matters in their respective countries.  The Electromagnetic Compatibility
(EMC) and Radio-Communication (RC) Specia l Exemption Cooperation Programme under the
TTMRA has been operating for some years to progress equivalence under the EMC and RCregulatory schemes, based on a common suite of standards.
In November 2001, the ACA and MED introduced new regulatory instruments that established a
common framework for EMC standards and product labelling arrangements.  In essence, the
framework provides that a product labelled in New Zealand that meets the New Zealandregulatory requirements for EMC can be supplied to the Australian market and vice versa.  At
the same time the ACA and MED signed a Memorandum of Understanding to promote ongoing
cooperation on product labelling, technical standards and monitoring of compliance.  The new
framework has been in operation for some 15 months and no issues or problems have been
encountered.  The result of this work is that EMC no longer requires a special exemption underthe TTMRA and the cooperation programme is now focused on achieving equivalence for
radio-communication products only.  Considerable progress has also been made in this area over
the last year, resulting in an in-principle agreement in February 2003 to bring nine radio
products categories under a common compliance framework.
This Special Exemption Cooperation Programme has been particularly notable for a high degree
of proactive regulatory cooperation and coordination, supported by a clear appreciation of the
principles of the TTMRA.
13. The TTMRA is an example of how equivalence can work when faced with different market orproduct characteristics, differing regulatory environments, and different technical infrastructure.  The
benefits of this from a New Zealand perspective have included reduced transaction and compliance
costs, enhanced competition, and an enhanced regional voice in global standard-setting forums.
14. In G/TBT/W/88, New Zealand provided a further example of standards equivalence in action:
referencing national standards from other countries in New Zealand legislation as a means of
compliance for regulations.  For example, New Zealand permits imported cars that meet the safety
standards of any of the EU, US, Japan, Australia, or UN-ECE to be placed on the market.  This does
not imply a “lowest common denominator” approach to equivalence – New Zealand recognises only
those standards that adequately fulfil legitimate regulatory objectives.  In practice, this “smorgasbord”
approach has proved to be of considerable benefit in facilitating trade in motor vehicles.  A
comparable approach may also be feasible in other areas.
15. An important principle in effectively operationalizing standards equivalence is transparency.
The SPS Committee in its discussions and Decision on equivalence has highlighted that thetransparency of equivalence agreements and confidence in the equivalence determination process is
vital for the effective operation of equivalence in action, particularly for developing countries.
8  As
                                                     
8 See G/SPS/19 and Add.1.G/TBT/W/211
Page 5
Australia’s forthcoming submission on equivalence points out, it may be more difficult to
operationalize equivalence in the TBT context than in the SPS context.  It would therefore seem that
transparency of equivalence agreements becomes ev en more important in the TBT context.  Members
may want to consider transparency guidelines for equivalence in any broader discussion of
transparency under the Third Triennial Review.
16. The examples set out above indicate that standards equivalence can play an important role in
avoiding and further reducing unnecessary obstacles to trade.  New Zealand suggests that Members
consider applying the concept of equivalence in the same way under the TBT Agreement for both
technical regulations and standards as an outcome of the Third Triennial Review.
__________