A REVIEW OF DISCUSSIONS ON NON‑TARIFF BARRIER ISSUES
AT THE ITA COMMITTEE FROM 1997 to 2023

Background Note by the Secretariat

The following background note was prepared by Dr Xiaodong WANG of the WTO Secretariat and delivered as a presentation at the ITA Committee's formal meeting of 11 April 2024.[1] It contains a summary of the ITA Committee's discussions on the issues indicated, and is without prejudice to the positions of ITA Participants and WTO Members.

_______________

Mandate on NTB Consultations

1.1.  Paragraph 3 of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Productions (_WT/MIN(96)/16) stipulates that "Participants shall meet periodically … to consult on non‑tariff barriers to trade in information technology products. Such consultations shall be without prejudice to rights and obligations under the WTO Agreement."

Committee's discussions during 1998‑1999

1.2.  In 1998, the Committee agreed to conduct a survey with respect to standards‑related matters for information technology products, based on two separate proposals from the United States and the European Communities. The survey enquired about ITA Participants' technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures for information technology products. The survey, containing three questions, was circulated in document _G/IT/4 on 19 February 1998. All the responses received from participants have been circulated in the document _G/IT/SPEC/Q1/* series.

Committee's discussions during 1999‑2005

1.3.  Based on a proposal from Australia in late 1999, the ITA Committee agreed to proceed with a Work Programme on NTMs on ITA products_, circulated in document _G/IT/19 on 13 November 2000.

1.4.  The NTM Work Programme established a three‑phase plan:

Phase I:  Identify NTMs which were impediments to trade in ITA products;

Phase II:     examine the economic and development impact of such measures on trade in ITA products and the benefits that would accrue to participants from addressing their undue trade‑distorting effects; and

Phase III:        the formal consideration by the Committee of the outcomes of Phases I and II.

1.5.  For Phase I, ten participants tabled written submissions, which were circulated in the document _G/IT/SPEC/Q2/* series. The Secretariat subsequently circulated a factual overview paper that arranged the NTMs raised by Participants into nine different categories, listed immediately below, with the number of participants that had mentioned each type of NTM indicated in parentheses:

–     Conformity Assessment and testing/certification (9);

–     Standards/regulatory environment (8);

–     Customs procedures/Certificates of origin (3);

–     Import licensing (1);

–     Rules of Origin (1);

–     Transparency and availability of information (1);

–     Government procurement (1);

–     Process and production methods (1); and

–     Visa/travel/tax restrictions for IT professionals (1)

1.6.  For Phase II, four Participants, namely Australia, Canada, the European Communities, and the United States, had provided written submissions, examining the economic and development impact of NTMs on the trade in ITA products. These submissions were circulated in the document _G/IT/SPEC/Q3/* series.

1.7.  At the meeting on 15 February 2002[2], the Chair drew ITA Participants' attention to the Canadian proposal on a pilot project on EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment (_G/IT/SPEC/Q3/2 and _G/IT/SPEC/Q3/4). Considering that there was a convergence of views on how to proceed, he proposed that the Committee start with the survey, while remaining open to any new submissions. The Committee agreed to proceed with the first part of the project, namely to conduct a survey.

1.8.  The survey on EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures was circulated in document _G/IT/22 on 22 March 2002. The responses received by participants were circulated in the document _G/IT/SPEC/Q4/ series. The Secretariat prepared an overview paper of the responses to the survey in document _G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2[3]; and prepared the bibliography on EMC/EMI circulated in document _G/IT/SPEC/Q3/5. The Committee also held a workshop on EMC/EMI on 22 April 2003, further to a proposal from Canada.

1.9.  The Guideline for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures, prepared by the ITA Committee, was circulated in document _G/IT/25 on 17 February 2005. It was a result of the Committee's work undertaken on the NTM Work Programme. The Guideline (which has no legal status) identified different types of conformity assessment procedures used by ITA Participants in respect of ITA products and summarized them into six categories, (a) to (f), in descending order of complexity, in Section I. In Section II of the document, three "guidelines" had been outlined, as follows:

(i)      The types of conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants should be limited to the six procedures listed in Sector I (a to f);

(ii)     an ITA participant that has at present no mandatory conformity assessment procedures should be encouraged to maintain the status quo. If conformity assessment procedures are to be adopted, the types of procedures used should be in accordance with Guideline 1 above; and

(iii)    ITA Participants using type (a) or (b) procedures listed in Section I should consider changing them to type (c), (d), (e) or (f).

Committee's discussions during 2005‑2011

1.10.  The Doha Round was launched in December 2001. The NTB issue was part of the NAMA negotiations which had had an impact on the ITA Committee's work on NTB issues. Considering the differing views among ITA Participants, the NTB discussions at the ITA Committee came to a halt during the period running from 2005 to 2011.

1.11.  To maintain communications between the ITA Committee and the Negotiating Group on Non‑Agricultural Market Access (NGMA), on 20 April 2005, the then ITA Chairperson (Mr Seppey) sent a letter to the NGMA Chair, providing him with factual information on the work done so far in the ITA Committee, and the accomplishments that had been realized. The letter was circulated in document _JOB(05)/67. In his letter, Mr Seppey introduced the Guideline for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures. He indicated that this completed the work on the EMC/EMI Pilot Project, and that the Committee would examine other possibilities as concerned future work on NTMs. He stressed the importance of dialogue between the ITA Committee and the NGMA.

Committee's discussions during 2011‑2015

1.12.  At the ITA Committee's meeting of 24 May 2011[4],some delegations suggested that it was time for the Committee to think about launching new NTB discussions that could be important for trade in IT products. A few others were of the view that the NGMA continued to the most appropriate venue for these discussions and that there was no need to duplicate the work in the ITA Committee. Another delegation felt that ITA Participants should be ready for resumption of the discussion on the NTM Work Programme at the ITA Committee.

1.13.  At the ITA Committee's meeting on 1 November 2012[5], the representative of Norway made a brief report on discussions held by a group of delegations on NTBs in the ITA context. The group consisted of 15 delegations and had met twice to discuss these issues. Switzerland and Norway hosted meetings on 20 September and 25 October 2012, respectively. The discussions were still at an early and conceptual stage with a view to developing some common ground on which they could base further talks, or to finding a basis for concrete work on which they could proceed. However, substantial work remained to be done before any possible work on actual texts could begin. The group invited other interested delegations to join these discussions, and indicated that it would update the Committee on their future discussions.

1.14.  At that same Committee meeting, on 1 November 2012, the representative of the European Union stated that the Committee needed to complete the work that had been achieved over the past 12 years and make it readily accessible and relevant to interested parties outside the Committee, including regulators, manufacturers, and exporters. He suggested that the Committee should look at three areas in particular, namely: (i) transparency for enterprises, investors, and regulators; (ii) good regulatory practices in relation to existing global value chains; and (iii) regulatory convergence through reviews and shared experiences. Elaborating further on transparency, he suggested that the Committee collect and build on the conformity assessment work that had been carried out under the EMC/EMI pilot project. He added that the results of this work should be shared with interested parties (enterprises, investors, regulators, and academia) through the creation of a webpage providing easy access.

1.15.  At its meeting of 14 October 2013[6], the ITA Committee agreed on the Swiss proposal to organize an industry‑driven workshop dedicated to NTBs affecting trade in ICT products. The Workshop on Non‑Tariff Barriers Affecting Trade in ICT Products took place on Thursday, 7 May 2015. The objective of the workshop was to provide an opportunity for the private sector: (i) to share their experience with trade policy makers on non‑tariff barriers (NTBs) affecting trade in ICT products; and (ii) to express their views on possible approaches to address NTBs in order to facilitate market access for ICT products. The factual report by the Chairperson, under his own responsibility, was circulated in document _G/IT/28. Concrete industry recommendations were identified in the following four areas: (a) transparency; (b) conformity assessment procedures; (c) E-labelling; and (d) Others, i.e. harmonize practices in the field of energy efficiency requirements and encourage global cooperation to avoid forced localization measures.

Committee's NTB discussions during 2015‑2023

1.16.  Following the NTB Workshop, there were extensive discussions on the way forward on NTB issues among ITA Participants at the ITA Committee's meeting of 14 October 2015[7], where some delegations had called for the Committee's work to be realistic, some had highlighted the potential benefits to SMEs, and others had highlighted the need to meet and react to industry needs. However, some delegations had expressed caution, indicating that it was a busy period and Members were preparing for the Nairobi Ministerial Conference. In addition, there were several proposals on the table for the Ministerial Conference that connected to the work of the Committee. Several delegations also mentioned the need to ensure that any work carried out should address the needs of developing and least developed countries. And one delegation mentioned the need for the Committee's work on NTBs to be proponent‑driven. The Chair proposed to continue his consultations in the following months.

1.17.  At the ITA Committee's meeting held on 18 April 2016[8], India raised questions regarding some substantive and systemic issues, namely: (i) the scope of product coverage if ITA Participants moved ahead on NTB work in the Committee, bearing in mind that some participants had started to expand the product list with regard to tariff elimination; and (ii) how the work on NTBs in the Committee would affect or be influenced by discussions in NAMA negotiations, where NTBs were also an element under discussion. In this regard, he had emphasized that it was important to avoid unnecessary duplication. Two other delegations had agreed with India that discussions on NTBs should be pursued in a manner consistent with the NAMA discussions on NTB issues. The delegate of Hong Kong, China noted that some Members might have resource constraints and proposed that the so‑called easier issues be tackled first. Hong Kong, China also supported the establishment of a "web portal" for transparency.

1.18.  At the ITA Committee's meeting of 28 June 2017[9], the representative of Switzerland reported that, since mid‑2016, Switzerland had been coordinating an informal group of 16 Members that were interested in discussing NTM issues relating to ICT products. The group was comprised of the following ITA Participants: Australia; Canada; Colombia; China; the European Union; Hong Kong, China; Japan; the Republic of Korea; New Zealand; Norway; Philippines; Singapore; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and the United States. He reported that, since the ITA Committee's previous meeting, members of the group had deepened their discussions of the three issues that had been listed in his November statement, namely: conformity assessment; transparency; and electronic labelling.

1.19.  Since then, Switzerland had been invited to provide to ITA Participants an update of the work of the group under the NTM agenda item of the ITA Committee's formal meetings. And at the ITA Committee's formal meeting of 17 May 2018[10], Switzerland reported that the group had been working more specifically on such issues as conformity assessment procedures, test results, e‑labelling, and transparency, as outlined in the NTB Workshop.

1.20.  From 2018 until 2023, Switzerland repeatedly reported to the ITA Committee's formal meetings that there had been no further progress made or activity undertaken by the group. With the exception of the European Union, few participants had taken the floor on this subject and no concrete proposals had been tabled for discussion.

__________