Seventh
Triennial Review of the operation and implementation of the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade Under Article 15.4
_______________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 2
1 Good Regulatory Practices........................................................................................ 2
2 Regulatory cooperation between Members........................................................... 4
3 Conformity Assessment Procedures........................................................................ 5
4 Standards......................................................................................................................... 8
5 Transparency................................................................................................................ 12
6 Technical Assistance................................................................................................. 16
7 Special and differential Treatment...................................................................... 18
8 Operation of the Committee..................................................................................... 19
Annex: Submissions from Members by Topic (NOV. 2012 – NOV.
2015)................ 22
The
Seventh Triennial Review is being carried out in 2015 in accordance with the
mandate under Article 15.4 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement).[1]
It was concluded on 6 November 2015. The first six triennial reviews
were completed in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012.[2]
During the review period (November 2012 – November 2015), the Committee has
undertaken work to follow-up on specific decisions and recommendations of the
Sixth Triennial Review[3],
as well as those agreed in previous reviews.[4]
Members
recognize that the full implementation of the Committee's existing decisions
and recommendations is a process that may span over several reviews. In this
regard, Members reiterate the importance of following up on previously agreed
decisions and recommendations as contained in G/TBT/1/Rev.12.
|
"Good Regulatory Practice (GRP) can contribute to the
improved and effective implementation of the substantive obligations under
the TBT Agreement. Effective implementation through best practices is seen as
an important means of avoiding and minimizing unnecessary technical barriers
to trade. Since the entry into force of the Agreement, the Committee has
engaged in an in-depth exchange of experiences on various aspects of Good
Regulatory Practice in order to foster a common understanding of the issues
involved."
|
|
G/TBT/26, para.
5, p.2 (emphasis added)
|
1.1 Exchange of experiences
1.1. During the review period, most of the Committee's exchange of
experiences took place in the context of thematic sessions on GRP, held on 5
March 2013[6], 17 June 2013[7], and
18 March 2014.[8] There were two broad areas
of discussion: (i) information exchange in relation to GRP, and (ii) work aimed
at identifying a non-exhaustive list of voluntary mechanisms and related
principles of GRP stemming from a mandate in the Sixth Triennial Review.[9]
1.2. A number of Members discussed in general
how GRP mechanisms are embodied in domestic legislation and policy. Canada
presented its 2012 CDRM[10] focusing on the
"one-for-one" rule aimed at reducing administrative burden on
business and eliminating unnecessary regulation.[11] The European Union
described the EU REFIT[12] Programme which conducts
regular assessment and maintenance of regulation to ensure that it continues to
achieve its legitimate objectives in the least costly and burdensome way.[13] Malaysia explained
how it applied GRP in its rule-making process and Quality Regulatory Management
System.[14] Mexico shared
information on how GRP principles – such as representativeness, consensus,
transparency, rationality, internal coordination, harmonization, and review –
were embodied in its domestic legislation. Mexico also described its regulatory
improvement process overseen by COFEMER[15], which includes deregulation,
simplification, and the identification of regulatory gaps.[16] The United States
placed emphasis on embedding GRP into institutional and other mechanisms for
implementing the TBT Agreement.[17]
1.3. A number of Members shared their experiences on transparency
and consultation mechanisms. Using the example of liability-rules
for the repair, replacement and return of household automotive products, China
showed how it employs an extensive public consultation process with a broad
range of stakeholders as a means of implementing GRP.[18] The EU described
the general framework, principles and minimum criteria of public consultation
and transparency, and their key role in operationalizing GRP throughout the
regulatory lifecycle.[19] Chinese Taipei
described how it applies GRP mechanisms for public consultation and
transparency in its regulatory process, including through the use of online
consultation mechanisms. A case study on a regulation aimed at harmonizing
standards for mobile phone chargers was presented.[20] A number of other Members
described similar mechanisms in the context of exchanging experiences in the
area of transparency.[21]
1.4. South Africa stressed the importance of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) as a mechanism in the
regulatory decision making process to assess options, to confirm the need for
government intervention and to set policy objectives. South Africa recognized
that although the manner in which RIAs were performed could differ from Member
to Member, there were some widely used key steps on which discussions could be
pursued.[22] The World Bank
explained that RIA was both a process for preparing regulatory proposals and a
document summarizing policy options, the scope and details of which varied
between Members, but increasingly incorporated impacts on trade and
international obligations in the assessment process.[23]
1.5. In the Sixth Triennial Review, the TBT Committee agreed to identify
a non-exhaustive list of voluntary mechanisms and related principles of Good
Regulatory Practice (the "non-exhaustive list") to guide Members in
the efficient and effective implementation of the TBT Agreement across the
regulatory lifecycle.[24] During the review period,
the Committee has undertaken work to advance this mandate.[25]
1.6. Regional initiatives on GRP were also discussed. Indonesia
described relevant work of the SCSC[26]; it was noted that APEC[27] members had been
encouraged to take a "whole of government" approach for development
of regulations, to use RIA, and to implement the 2005 APEC-OECD Integrated
Checklist on Regulatory Reform.[28] The US presented
efforts in the context of APEC aimed at strengthening the implementation of
GRP, including with respect to implementation of public consultations through
information technology and the Internet.[29]
1.7. The OECD updated the Committee on recent work, including the
launch of the Regulatory Policy Outlook which analysed progress made by OECD
members in improving the way they regulate against the benchmark of the 2012
OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance.[30] The UNECE updated the
Committee on developments in WP.6[31], which broadly works at
promoting good practice in the development and implementation of technical
regulations.[32]
1.8. Building on this exchange as well as on previous decisions and
recommendations of the Committee, and with a view to furthering its work in the
area of GRP, the Committee agrees:
a.
to continue to exchange information on mechanisms of GRP adopted
by WTO Members that facilitate the implementation of the TBT Agreement; and,
b.
to hold a thematic session in March 2016[33] on
RIAs, including discussion of:
i.
the extent to
which RIAs could facilitate the implementation of the TBT Agreement,
considering the constraints facing developing countries in carrying out RIAs;
and
ii.
how trade impacts
and TBT Agreement obligations could be taken into account in the preparation of
RIAs.
|
"The Committee notes
that regulatory cooperation between Members
is an effective means of disseminating GRP.
It can also build confidence between trading partners through
enhancing mutual understanding of regulatory systems, thereby supporting
efforts that aim at removing unnecessary barriers to trade. A fundamental component
to regulatory cooperation is the promotion of dialogue between Members,
including at senior level. A wide variety of approaches can be employed by
regulators to collaborate with each other – from information sharing to
negotiating specific agreements."
|
|
G/TBT/26, paras 14-15, p. 4 (emphasis
added)
|
2.1. During the review period, most of the Committee's exchange of
experiences on regulatory cooperation between Members took place in the context
of thematic sessions.[35]
Mexico described some principal characteristics of regulatory
cooperation which have featured in various aspects of the work of the TBT
Committee.[36]
Mexico also recalled an earlier submission, together with Canada and the United
States, describing a variety of collaborative approaches to regulatory
cooperation across several sectors.[37] New
Zealand described efforts to promote regulatory coherence in wine trade in
the context of the WWTG[38]
and the APEC WRF[39].[40]
Switzerland suggested that "in-depth discussions" dedicated to
topical issues relevant to the implementation of the TBT Agreement could be a
way for Members to discuss specific international regulatory or standardisation
challenges, thereby contributing to early regulatory cooperation between
Members on new or emerging issues.[41] Switzerland
and China identified food labelling and energy efficiency standards,
respectively, as two topics for such discussions.[42]
2.2. The OECD described its work to improve understanding of the
mechanisms of international regulatory cooperation and their contribution to
regulatory quality.[43]
The UNECE reported on work in WP.29[44]
and other sectoral initiatives for regulatory cooperation.[45]
2.3. Building on this exchange as well as on previous decisions and
recommendations of the Committee, and with a view to furthering its work and
raising awareness of the importance of regulatory cooperation between Members,
the Committee agrees:
a.
to deepen and broaden its information exchange in the area of
regulatory cooperation between Members, based on topics identified by Members.
The purpose of this information exchange is to:
i.
provide Members
with an opportunity to share factual information and experiences with respect
to ongoing, new or emerging regulatory issues, including in specific sectors,
without duplicating regulatory cooperation work in other technical bodies[46];
ii.
discuss possible
elements of regulatory cooperation between Members with the aim of making
regulatory cooperation initiatives more effective; and,
b.
to hold thematic sessions on regulatory cooperation between
Members in June and November 2016.[47]
The Committee will organize these sessions based on proposals from Members.
|
"Five articles of the
TBT Agreement address conformity assessment
procedures, and establish obligations of a substantive and
procedural nature. Articles 5 and 6 contain disciplines applying to central
government bodies. Articles 7, 8 and 9 relate to conformity assessment
procedures of local government bodies, non-governmental bodies and international
and regional systems."
|
|
G/TBT/1/Rev.12,
Section 2, para. 2.1, p.8 (emphasis added)
|
3.1. During the review period, most of the Committee's exchange of
experiences took place in the context of thematic sessions on conformity assessment
procedures, held on 29 October 2013[49]
and 4 November 2014.[50]
3.2. Members discussed criteria and methods of analysis used to inform
their evaluation of the range of choices in conformity assessment procedures.
The EU explained its conformity assessment system follows a risk-based
approach, which aims for consistency and coherence in a given sector. Criteria
for selection of conformity assessment procedures included the type of product
and economic infrastructure of the sector, and the nature, type and degree of
risk associated with the product in light of its intended use.[51]
The EU also explained the role of market surveillance in relation to
conformity assessment procedures and product liability regimes.[52]
The US explained that the NIST[53]
supported US Federal Agencies by coordinating government conformity assessment
activities with the private sector to reduce unnecessary duplication and
complexity. While US policy did not prescribe any specific approach to
conformity assessment, NIST recommended a risk-based approach, whereby the
level of rigor of the system was balanced against the risks associated with
non-compliance and the risk of the product.[54]
3.3. Members discussed the importance of technical infrastructure (e.g.
metrology, testing, certification, and accreditation[55]) –
also referred to as quality infrastructure – in supporting the implementation
of the TBT Agreement and facilitating international trade. Burundi
shared information about its national standardization, metrology, quality
assurance and testing system, and the responsibilities of the BBN.[56] [57] The EU (Germany) presented its development cooperation in
the field of quality infrastructure.[58] Malaysia
shared its experience with standards and conformity assessment infrastructure,
focusing on the role that Standards Malaysia plays in the development of
standards, quality management, accreditation, and metrology infrastructure
(SQAM).[59]
Peru described its national plan for quality infrastructure and how it
relates to efforts undertaken to enhance competitiveness.[60]
The US discussed the trade-facilitating role of a national quality
infrastructure.[61]
3.4. Two Members described regional cooperation initiatives in relation
to quality infrastructure. South Africa explained that the PAQI[62]
initiative coordinated regional efforts on metrology, standardization and
accreditation of conformity assessment services, and involved four regional
bodies (AFRAC, AFRIMETS, AFSEC and ARSO[63]).
South Africa also described how Africa was becoming more strongly linked to the
international framework of quality infrastructure, including through an
increase in the number of internationally recognized accreditation bodies in
Africa, and the launch of AFRAC in 2010 that created a link between national
accreditation bodies and ILAC/IAF.[64]
[65]
The US explained that the QICA[66]
was a regional cooperation initiative between the three regional organizations
of the Americas responsible for standardization, metrology and accreditation
(COPANT, SIM and IAAC[67]).
It aimed to foster competitiveness, innovation, trade, and consumer safety by
enhancing the ability of OAS[68]
member states to have access to internationally recognized quality
infrastructure services.[69]
3.5. The BIPM[70]
emphasized the importance of a common understanding and application of
metrology for international trade, and explained how metrology underpinned the
activities of conformity assessment.[71] OIML
provided information on transparency and approval procedures for OIML
International Recommendations.[72]
ISO explained that the standards developed by CASCO[73],
collectively referred to as the ISO/CASCO toolbox, cover requirements for
accreditation bodies and for a range of conformity assessment bodies including
testing laboratories.[74]
3.6. Members discussed approaches used to facilitate the acceptance of
conformity assessment results, building on the "Indicative List".[75]
Japan described the practicality and value of the acceptance of foreign
test results on condition that a certain level of reliability is ensured as a
way to facilitate trade, including through the use of international laboratory
accreditation schemes (e.g. ILAC MRA[76])
and sector specific-schemes (e.g. IECEE CB scheme[77],
OECD GLP[78]
for chemicals).[79] South
Africa explained it had yet to establish an operational
government-to-government Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) for conformity
assessment due primarily to: technical challenges, such as capacity constraints
and institutional differences between parties; and, political challenges,
including bias toward domestic testing facilities and difficulties on agreeing
on the products or sectors to be covered.[80] Chinese
Taipei shared experiences on use of accreditation by regulators and by
industry. While regulators were sometimes reluctant to rely on accreditation
due to a perceived loss of authority, accreditation in fact facilitated the
work of regulators by providing technical support.[81]
Chinese Taipei also described how conformity assessment procedures could impose
a significant burden on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) impeding
participation in international trade.[82] Ukraine
recalled the importance of Members using accreditation as a tool to facilitate
international trade, including through the framework of international systems
for the recognition of conformity assessment results, such as mutual
recognition agreements or arrangements (MRA/MLA) between accreditation bodies.[83]
3.7. The ILAC and IAF described how their multilateral
mutual recognition arrangements enhanced confidence in conformity assessment
results, thereby reducing unnecessary duplication of certification and
facilitating trade. However, the extent to which the ILAC and IAF arrangements
can facilitate trade depends on their use by regulators.[84]
3.8. Canada described its new regulatory
framework for Federal Food Inspection.[85]
Other relevant updates were provided by: BIPM[86],
Codex[87],
IEC[88],
ISO[89],
ITC[90],
UNECE[91],
OIML[92]
and UNIDO.[93]
3.9. Building on this exchange as well as on previous decisions and
recommendations of the Committee, and with a view to furthering its work in the
area of conformity assessment procedures, and in particular with respect to the
recommendation from the Fifth Triennial Review to initiate work on developing
practical guidance on the choice and design of mechanisms aimed at
strengthening the implementation of the TBT Agreement, including the
facilitation of acceptance of conformity assessment results[94],
the Committee agrees:
a.
to continue to exchange information in respect of the three
areas of work identified in the Sixth Triennial Review (namely: Approaches to
conformity assessment; Use of relevant international standards, guides or
recommendations; and, Facilitating the recognition of conformity assessment
results)[95];
b.
to exchange information on initiatives of Members to enhance
regulators’ reliance on international and/or regional systems for conformity
assessment, including sectoral schemes, aimed at facilitating the recognition
of conformity assessment results;
c.
to discuss approaches to the use of quality infrastructure,
both national and regional, for facilitating trade in respect of standards,
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures;
d.
to discuss factors that Members consider relevant when deciding
whether to accept tests and other conformity assessment results in other
Members. For example, relevant factors could be: the existence of international
schemes, or mutual recognition agreements, for the acceptance of tests and
other conformity assessment results; or reliance on accreditation to
demonstrate technical competence of conformity assessment bodies; and,
e.
to hold a thematic session in March 2016[96] on
developments in international and regional systems, and regional trade
agreements (RTAs), relating to the recognition and acceptance of conformity
assessment results.
|
"The provisions
concerning the preparation, adoption and application of standards
are contained in Article 4 of the TBT Agreement and in the Code of Good
Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards (the
"Code of Good Practice"). In addition, Articles 2.4, 2.5, 5.4, and
Paragraph F of Annex 3 of the Agreement promote the use of relevant
international standards, guides and recommendations as a basis for standards,
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures. Articles 2.6, 5.5
and Paragraph G of Annex 3 emphasize the importance of Members' participation
in international standardization activities related to products for which
they have either adopted, or expect to adopt, technical regulations."
|
|
G/TBT/1/Rev.12,
Section 3, para. 3.1, p. 12 (emphasis added, footnote omitted)
|
4.1. During the review period, most of the Committee's exchange of
experiences took place in the context of thematic sessions on standards, held
on 5 March 2013[98] and 18 March 2014[99], as well as in the context
of a thematic session on the topic of transparency, held on 17 June 2014[100]. Four main areas were
covered: (i) the Code of Good Practice; (ii) the "Six Principles"[101]; (iii) transparency in
standard-setting; and, (iv) the use of standards in regulation. In addition,
other information relevant to standards was provided by both Members and Observers.
4.2. During the review period, four bodies accepted the Code of Good
Practice (hereafter “the Code”) and none withdrew from it. To date, 165
standardizing bodies (of all types) have notified their acceptance of the Code.[102]
4.3. Australia described how business and
operational processes had been implemented by Standards Australia to ensure a
more effective application of the principles contained in the Code. It was
noted that addressing transparency early in the standard-setting process (at
the proposal stage) in addition to holding consultations at the public comment
stage had led to a more efficient delivery of standards, both in terms of
quality and timeliness.[103] The EU described
its standardization system and the three European Standards Organizations (CEN,
CENELEC and ETSI)[104] explained how they applied
the Code. CEN and CENLEC said they applied specific membership criteria that
incorporated the Code, the Six Principles (see below) and additional elements,
according to which they assessed member national standardization bodies.[105] The US explained
that ANSI[106], a private sector
organization, coordinated the market-driven US standardization system by
accrediting US standards developing organizations (SDOs). ANSI accepted the
Code on behalf of its over 200 accredited SDOs, and accreditation was according
to SDOs meeting the requirements for due process as elaborated in the ANSI
Essential Requirements.[107]
4.4. Australia described its Industry
Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, a policy initiative which aims to reduce
regulatory burden and remove barriers to trade through acceptance or adoption
of "trusted international standards" and risk assessments, and which
aligns with the principles of Effectiveness and Relevance, and Coherence.[108] Indonesia explained
how also the Six Principles were important to consider in national
standard-setting processes – including with respect to the importance of having
a national policy in place to adopt international standards.[109]
4.5. The ISO and the IEC described their efforts to
implement the Six Principles, highlighting their decision-making procedures and
stressing the importance of market relevance and effectiveness, as well as
coherence among standardizing bodies.[110] Similarly, the OIML
provided information on transparency and approval procedures for OIML
International Recommendations.[111]
4.6. Egypt described the functions and
procedures of the EOS[112], and provided examples of
how transparency had helped to improve the development of standards by taking
into account concerns expressed by stakeholders.[113] Japan described the
process of developing Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS), with a particular
emphasis on the implementation of Paragraphs J and L of the Code relating to publication
of a work programme and receipt of comments before adoption of the standard.[114] Japan stressed the
importance of central government standardizing bodies publishing their work
programmes on specific websites and notifying the specific website address to
the ISO/IEC Information Centre, to enable stakeholders to quickly and easily
identify future standardization work that is likely to affect them, thereby
enhancing their ability to effectively participate in such activities. Japan
also highlighted the need to improve information sharing amongst Members about
the publications in which a notice announcing the period for commenting on a
draft standard is published, in order to enable interested Members or
businesses to become aware of the notice and take the opportunity to submit
comments.[115]
4.7. Members discussed methods of referencing standards in regulation.[116] Australia described
its policy initiative to assess international standards for adoption or use in
regulation, including as part of GRP.[117] The European Union
described the EU New Approach, under which legislation specified essential
product requirements (health, safety and environment), while European
harmonized standards supported legislation by providing one or more ways of meeting
that policy objective (as expressed in the essential requirements), preserving
the voluntary nature of standards.[118] The United States
explained that US agencies rely on private sector voluntary standards to meet
regulatory needs according to guidance set out in the US OMB[119] Circular A-119 (under
revision during the review period). US policy maintains a strong preference for
using voluntary consensus standards in regulation, but also acknowledges that
there are standards not developed in a consensus-driven process that are in use
in the market – particularly in the area of information technology – and may be
relevant and necessary in meeting agency missions and priorities.[120] Malaysia described
the use of standards and technical regulations in supporting its regulatory
framework.[121]
4.8. Burundi described the establishment of
its national standardization body, the BBN.[122] China highlighted the importance of
standards for energy efficiency.[123] Malaysia explained
the standards development activities and procedures of Standards Malaysia, and
that a new standards development process had been instituted in 2012 which
reduced the time needed to develop and adopt standards.[124] Mexico provided a
number of updates on its national standardization programme.[125]
4.9. Other relevant updates were provided by: BIPM[126], Codex[127], IEC[128], ISO[129], ITC[130], UNCTAD[131], UNECE[132], OIML[133] and jointly by a number of
organizations on the UNFSS[134] and its work on
"voluntary sustainability standards".[135] The ITC presented its
online "standards map", an interactive portal providing information
and comparability across "voluntary sustainability standards".[136]
4.10. Building on this exchange as well as on previous decisions and
recommendations of the Committee, and with a view to furthering its work in the
area of standards, the Committee agrees:
a. to hold a thematic session in June
2016[137] on methods of referencing
standards in regulation, including Members' initiatives or policies that seek
to utilize international standards in regulation;
b. with respect to transparency in standard-setting:
i. consistent with paragraph J of the Code, to encourage
Members' central government standardizing bodies, and non-governmental bodies
that have accepted the Code, to publish their work programmes on websites and
notify the specific website addresses where the work programmes are published
to the ISO/IEC Information Centre;
ii. consistent with paragraph L of the Code, to encourage
Members' central government standardizing bodies, and non-governmental bodies
that have accepted the Code, to share information about the publication of a
notice announcing the period for commenting on a draft standard (e.g. title and
volume of publication, website address); and,
iii. to discuss ways of improving
Members' access to the information mentioned in i
and ii above.
c. to exchange information and
experiences on reasonable measures taken by Members to ensure that local
government and non-governmental standardizing bodies involved in the
development of standards within their territories, accept and comply with the
Code.[138]
|
"The TBT Agreement
contains transparency provisions in:
Articles 2 and 3 (technical regulations); Articles 5, 7, 8 and 9 (conformity
assessment procedures); Annex 3, paragraphs J, L, M, N, O & P (standards);
and Articles 10 (general transparency provisions) and 15 (final provisions).
A number of decisions and recommendations have been made with a view to
facilitating access to information and further improving the implementation
of transparency procedures under the Agreement."
|
|
G/TBT/1/Rev.12,
Section 4, para. 4.1, p. 17 (emphasis added)
|
5.1. During the review period, most of the Committee's exchange of
experiences took place in the context of its Seventh Special Meeting on
Procedures for Information Exchange held on 18 June 2013[140]
and a thematic session on transparency held on 18 June 2014.[141]
In the Committee’s discussions on transparency, three areas were discussed in
particular: (i) enquiry points, (ii) online tools; and, (iii) regional
experiences. A number of other issues were also raised. Members continued to
submit a large number of TBT notifications during the review period
(Chart 1). The Committee also adopted a recommendation on the coherent use
of notification formats (G/TBT/35), and launched the online TBT notification
submission system (TBT NSS).
Chart
1: Total TBT notifications per Triennial Review period[142]
5.2. Members shared experiences on challenges faced by enquiry points in
responding to comments and requests, and with respect to building support among
interested stakeholders in the private sector for the services of enquiry
points.[144]
Members also shared information about the role of enquiry points in mechanisms
to facilitate internal coordination for the effective implementation of the TBT
Agreement's transparency obligations.[145]
5.3. Brazil described efforts of its enquiry
point to inform Brazilian exporters, in particular SMEs, about requirements in
export markets and matters related to the TBT Agreement, including through the
export alert system, training activities to interested parties, and the
preparation of competitiveness studies and technical documents to enhance
exporter awareness of TBT.[146]
China explained that its enquiry point translates notifications into
Chinese for better engagement with domestic stakeholders, distributes brochures
to raise awareness of other Members’ measures, is in contact with leading
enterprises and trade associations that provided comments on other Members’
measures, and maintains branches throughout China with experts in different
fields who are able to provide assistance regarding compliance with TBT
requirements.[147]
The EU described the importance of active communication with relevant
stakeholders to ensure effective implementation of TBT obligations, and gave
examples of awareness raising in the EU, including through the EU TBT website
and alert system, and a promotional video on TBT notification procedures
targeting SMEs.[148]
5.4. Japan explained that its two TBT enquiry
points are responsible for responding to enquiries from Members, internal
coordination with relevant government ministries (on notifications and
comments), as well as providing advice on TBT matters.[149] Kenya
described its TBT National Consultative Committee, which reviews and
coordinates views on all issues pertaining to TBT. This includes, for example,
the evaluation of notifications of other Members and coordination among
ministries in light of developments in the TBT Committee.[150]
Kenya also shared its experience with the development of a national database
for dissemination of TBT notifications, NotifyKE, which is linked to the TBT
Information Management System (TBT IMS).[151]
5.5. The Republic of Korea highlighted the important role of
enquiry points and the need to further improve their functioning especially in
the handling of comments.[152] Malaysia described the role of its TBT enquiry point within
national coordination efforts to administer the TBT Agreement; this work
included the development of Malaysia's TBT National Mirror Committee, a WTO/TBT
newsletter and an export alert system to inform stakeholders on TBT
notifications.[153]
Mexico emphasized the importance of mechanisms to ensure proper
dissemination of TBT notifications to all interested domestic stakeholders, and
of national coordination schemes to ensure adequate follow up.[154]
5.6. Ukraine shared the initiatives
undertaken by its TBT enquiry point to enhance awareness and engagement of the
private sector on TBT matters, including through various periodical and ad hoc free-of-charge
publications providing information on new proposed measures (TBT and SPS
notifications), and relevant topics arising at Committee meetings.[155]
The US described the value of enquiry points in directly lowering costs
of trade, reducing information asymmetries, and increasing exports and access
to new markets, and stressed the importance of cooperation between Members'
enquiry points.[156]
The US also informed the Committee that it had developed a customized email
alert service (NotifyUS), operated by its enquiry point, which allows
stakeholders to subscribe and receive messages when new notifications are
issued that corresponded to regions or products of their interest.[157]
The US also explained how it engages with the private sector through Advisory
Committees, which follow a whole-of-government, multi-stakeholder approach
aimed at producing the best possible policy and regulatory outcomes.[158]
5.7. The TBT Committee launched the TBT online Notification
Submission System (TBT NSS) on 31 October 2013. During 2014, a total of 798
notifications were submitted through the TBT NSS, representing 36% of the
annual notification volume. Thirty Members were using the TBT NSS when this
report was issued.[160]
Online submission has facilitated and accelerated the submission and processing
of notifications, increasing the time available to Members to submit comments
on notifications of interest.
5.8. The EU shared its experience and noted that the TBT NSS
enabled the WTO Secretariat to issue notifications within two days of reception
whereas this had previously taken one to two weeks. The system also enabled
Members to track the status of submitted notifications through the system's
dashboard and create templates to ease the preparation of similar
notifications. As a future improvement, the EU suggested that the TBT NSS allow
for direct uploading of a completed notification in PDF, in order to avoid
copying and pasting the content of prepared notifications into the TBT NSS.[161]
Uganda suggested technical improvements to the TBT NSS, so to allow for
multiuser accounts and email alerts signalling rejection of notifications.[162]
5.9. Canada suggested the WTO Secretariat
develop a global email-based notification alert system in order to raise
awareness and enable Members and their domestic stakeholders to be more engaged
and benefit from TBT Agreement transparency provisions, improve internal
coordination of trade matters important to the Member, and foster an additional
avenue for dialogue among industry, regulators and trade policy officers.[163] The Republic of Korea suggested that the Secretariat
develop a WTO-based bulletin board system to administer comments on notified
measures.[164]
5.10. During the review period, Members discussed notifications made at
the regional level. Peru (on behalf of the Andean Community) described
the coordination, preparation and submission of TBT notifications of regional
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures. The Member holding
the Presidency of the Andean Community notified these measures to the WTO on
behalf of all four Members, through a multi-symbol notification document, and
the notifying Member also received comments from other WTO Members and
forwarded these to the sub-regional expert group.[165] Saudi
Arabia (on behalf of the GCC[166])
explained that notification of GSO[167]
regional technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures had led to
some duplication and complexity, and described efforts by GSO to coordinate
preparation and timely submission of TBT notifications of GSO measures.[168]
The United States described good practices for the notification of
regional technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures.[169]
5.11. During the review period, Members discussed a number of other issues
relevant to transparency:
a.
On Article 15.2 (Statement on Implementation and Administration
of the TBT Agreement)[170],
six Members submitted their first[171]
statements and eight Members submitted revisions to their statements.[172]
Canada suggested a partnering exercise to encourage submission of
notifications under Article 15.2 by the 30 Members that have not yet done so.[173]
b.
On follow-up[174],
the Committee adopted a recommendation on coherent use of notification
formats[175]
in response to the mandate from the Fifth Triennial Review.[176] South
Africa explained their use of notification templates and identified some
challenges, such as accurately identifying HS codes.[177]
c.
On the provision of translations[178], South
Africa reiterated the importance of the Committee's existing
recommendations on provision of translations to ensure that Members have the
right to provide comments on draft technical regulations and/or conformity
assessment procedures.[179]
5.12. Building on this exchange as well as on previous decisions and
recommendations of the Committee, and with a view to furthering its work in the
area of transparency, the Committee reiterates the importance of the full
implementation of the existing body of decisions and recommendations adopted by
the Committee in the area of transparency and agrees with respect to:
a.
functioning of
enquiry points:
i.
to continue discussing their role in facilitating internal
coordination and in the handling of comments, and explore
ways to improve their functioning, including through the use of online tools
and by addressing capacity building needs of developing Members;
ii.
to request the Secretariat, based on experiences shared by
Members and for the purposes of training and capacity building, to prepare a
guide on best practices for enquiry points for the consideration of Members at
the Eighth Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange (November
2016)[180];
b.
follow-up, to encourage Members to follow the
recommendation on coherent use of notification formats[181];
c.
provision
of translations, building on existing
recommendations of the Committee[182],
to encourage Members to provide
translations of draft technical regulations and conformity assessment
procedures in one of the WTO official working languages and make them available
to Members and their exporters in an effective, efficient and transparent way,
taking into account the special difficulties of developing Members;
d.
use of online
tools:
i.
to encourage Members in a position to do so to begin using the
TBT NSS to facilitate and accelerate the submission and processing of
notifications;
ii.
to request the Secretariat to continue to improve the TBT NSS
and TBT IMS in line with the needs of Members;
iii.
to request the Secretariat to explore the development of an
export alert system for TBT notifications, in cooperation with other
organizations; and,
iv.
to request the Secretariat to report back on d.ii and d.iii above at
the Eighth Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange (November
2016)[183];
e.
regional
experiences, with a view to providing greater
transparency and meaningful opportunity for comment, to discuss
the notification of regional technical regulations and conformity assessment
procedures and recommend best practices.
|
"Provisions on technical assistance are contained in Article 11 of the
TBT Agreement. Technical assistance has been considered an area of priority
work for the Committee since its establishment; it figures on the agenda of
the Committee on a permanent basis. Members have regularly, on a voluntary
basis, exchanged experiences and information on technical assistance in order
to enhance the implementation of Article 11 of the TBT Agreement."
|
|
G/TBT/1/Rev.12,
Section 5, para. 5.1, p. 37 (emphasis added)
|
6.1. During the review period, most of the Committee's exchange of
experiences took place in the context of thematic sessions on technical
assistance, held on 29 October 2013[185]
and 4 November 2014.[186]
6.2. The European Union presented the ACP-EU TBT Programme and
described its general approach to TBT-related technical assistance,
highlighting several objectives: demand-driven; anchoring in relevant trade and
partnership agreements; building lasting infrastructures; and ensuring
coherence and coordination between donors.[187] Kenya
and the EU (Sweden) described the TBT Mentorship Programme, which aimed
to improve the implementation of the TBT Agreement in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda,
Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. This SIDA[188]
funded programme, which ran from 2008-2012, sought to: create awareness of TBT
measures to enhance the understanding of the TBT Agreement among stakeholders;
strengthen institutional capacities for conformity assessment bodies;
strengthen national TBT enquiry points for effective service delivery, and
improve regulatory infrastructure.[189]
6.3. The Republic of Korea explained that the International
Standards Infrastructure Cooperation Program, managed by KATS[190]
and KSA[191],
aims to enhance the national standardization capacities of partner economies,
and strengthen relationships with national and regional standards
organizations. Activities included a Seoul-based cooperation programme with
significant participation of experts from GSO and ARSO, and projects to address
standardization, conformity assessment and legal metrology challenges.[192]
6.4. The United States presented the Standards Alliance, managed
by ANSI and USAID[193],
which provides capacity-building assistance to developing Members, specifically
related to implementation of the TBT Agreement. The programme objectives are:
increased understanding of WTO TBT principles, implementation of the Code,
improved transparency in the development and modification of technical
regulations, and more robust and transparent engagement with the private sector
in standards development and use.[194]
6.5. The Secretariat of the STDF[195]
described its coordination and funding role in SPS-related technical
assistance. While there was scope to address certain TBT issues through STDF on
the basis of synergies with SPS, for example in the area of laboratory
infrastructure, the mandate of STDF was currently limited to SPS issues.[196]
6.6. Information on technical assistance activities was provided by BIPM[197],
Codex[198],
IEC[199],
ISO[200],
ITC[201],
OIML[202],
UNIDO[203]
and UNECE.[204]
The WTO Secretariat provided information on its technical assistance activities
during the review period.[205]
6.2 Recommendations
6.7. Building on this exchange as well as on previous decisions and
recommendations of the Committee, and with a view to furthering its work in the
area of technical assistance, the Committee agrees:
a.
to reaffirm the need to review the effectiveness of technical
assistance and capacity building activities among Members in the TBT area, and encourage Members to continue to exchange experiences on
technical assistance;
b.
to stress the importance and discuss possible approaches to
enhancing the active
participation of developing Members in thematic sessions held by the Committee;
c.
to hold a thematic session in November 2016[206]
on technical assistance, including discussion of:
i.
the positive
effects of technical assistance and capacity building in the TBT area for
international trade; and,
ii.
possible
approaches to identifying gaps between the demand[207]
and supply of technical assistance in the TBT area for developing Members, and
seeking to close them where they exist, including through exploring the need
for more coordination and better targeted TBT-related technical assistance.
|
"Article 12 of the TBT
Agreement addresses Special and Differential
Treatment of Developing Country Members. Members have, on various
occasions, exchanged information and views on the operation and
implementation of this Article, including in the context of other items on
the TBT Committee's agenda."
|
|
G/TBT/1/Rev.12,
Section 6, para. 6.1, p. 41 (emphasis added)
|
7.1. During the review period, most of the Committee's exchange of
experiences took place in the context of thematic sessions on special and
differential treatment, held on 29 October 2013[209]
and 4 November 2014.[210]
7.2. China highlighted the importance of
working towards guidelines for the implementation of the special and differential
treatment provisions of the TBT Agreement.[211]
China suggested establishing a TBT Committee electronic working group to
develop special and differential treatment guidelines, and gave some
preliminary ideas for themes of the guidelines, including: notifications;
specific trade concerns; equivalence recognition; and, assistance for effective
participation in international standardization work. Cuba stressed the
importance of ensuring a better implementation of Article 12 on special and
differential treatment, and of sharing experiences among Members to that end.[212]
7.3. Ecuador described the special and
differential treatment provisions of the TBT Agreement and related case law,
and put forward suggestions for strengthening and making Article 12 more effective
and operational, especially in relation to avoiding unnecessary obstacles to
trade (Article 12.3), granting of exceptions (Article 12.8), international
standards (Article 12.4), technical assistance (Articles 12.5, 12.6, 12.7 and
12.8) and notifications (Article 12.8).[213]
7.4. The European Union explained how the European Commission's
Impact Assessment Guidelines integrate the development dimension in the EU
rule-making process. Impact assessments should establish, amongst others,
whether a proposed EU initiative has international impacts, which include
impacts on trade with other Members, and economic, social, and environmental
impacts on developing Members to ensure coherence with the objectives of EU
development policy. These impacts are considered by regulators on a
case-by-case basis in the rule making process, in their efforts to strike an
appropriate balance between the various interests at stake.[214]
7.5. The WTO Secretariat provided information on work related to special
and differential treatment in the Committee on Trade and Development and the
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.[215]
7.2 Recommendations
7.6. Building on this exchange as well as on previous decisions and
recommendations of the Committee, and with a view to furthering its work in the
area of special and differential treatment, the Committee agrees:
a.
to encourage Members to continue to exchange information on the
implementation of Article 12 of the TBT Agreement, with a view towards
enhancing the effective operation of Article 12.
|
Operation of the Committee.
"Pursuant to Article 13 of the TBT Agreement, the TBT Committee was
established with the purpose of: "affording Members the opportunity of
consulting on any matters relating to the operation of this Agreement or the
furtherance of its objectives, and shall carry out such responsibilities as
assigned to it under this Agreement or by the Members". The Committee
has, to date, essentially had two functions: (i) the review of measures and
(ii) exchange of information on Members' experiences on the implementation of
the Agreement."
|
|
G/TBT/32,
para. 23, p. 9.
|
8.1. During the review period the Committee held nine regular meetings, from March 2013 to November 2015.[217]
With respect to review of measures, a total of 126 new specific trade concerns
(STCs) were raised in the review period (Chart 2). In addition, 124 previously
raised STCs were also discussed.[218]
During 2014, the most new STCs were raised (47) in any given year since 1995.
Chart 3 shows an overall upward trend in both notifications and STCs.[219]
Chart
2: New specific trade concerns per Triennial Review period
Chart
3: Trends in notifications and STCs[220]
8.2. Back-to-back with the regular meetings, the Committee also held thematic sessions that addressed the following cross-cutting
issues related to the implementation and operation of the TBT Agreement: good
regulatory practice[221],
regulatory cooperation between Members[222],
standards[223],
conformity assessment procedures[224],
transparency (including the Committee's Seventh Special Meeting on Procedures
for Information Exchange)[225],
technical assistance and special and differential treatment[226],
and the operation of the Committee.[227]
8.3. Building on the valuable experiences gained in the context of
thematic sessions since 2012, and with a view to further deepening the
Committee's exchange of experiences on specific topics, the Committee
agrees:
a.
to continue to hold thematic sessions in conjunction with its
regular meetings[228];
and,
b.
on the following work programme for thematic sessions[229]:
i.
March 2016: conformity
assessment procedures[230]
and good regulatory practice[231]
ii.
June 2016: regulatory
cooperation between Members[232]
and standards[233]
iii.
November 2016: transparency,
including the Eighth Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange[234],
technical assistance[235]
and regulatory cooperation between Members[236]
iv.
In 2017 and 2018,
Members will continue to hold thematic sessions as appropriate pursuant to the
decisions and recommendations before the Committee.
[1] Article 15.4 of the TBT
Agreement states, in full: "Not
later than the end of the third year from the date of entry into force of the
WTO Agreement and at the end of each three-year period thereafter, the
Committee shall review the operation and implementation of this Agreement,
including the provisions relating to transparency, with a view to recommending
an adjustment of the rights and obligations of this Agreement where necessary
to ensure mutual economic advantage and balance of rights and obligations,
without prejudice to the provisions of Article 12. Having regard, inter alia,
to the experience gained in the implementation of the Agreement, the Committee
shall, where appropriate, submit proposals for amendments to the text of this
Agreement to the Council for Trade in Goods".
[2] Reports of these triennial reviews
are contained in: G/TBT/5; G/TBT/9; G/TBT/13; G/TBT/19; G/TBT/26; and G/TBT/32.
[3] A list of submissions
circulated in the TBT Committee relevant to the topics under review is
contained in the Annex to this document (p. 22).
[4] A compilation of the TBT
Committee's Decisions and Recommendations adopted since January 1995 is
contained in document G/TBT/1/Rev.12. This document also contains the
Committee's Rules of Procedure, including Guidelines for Observer Status for
Governments and International Intergovernmental Organizations.
[5] Previous decisions and
recommendations on GRP are contained in Section 1 (Part 1) of G/TBT/1/Rev.12. The latest Secretariat background note is contained in JOB(08)/7,
and a compilation of sources of information on GRP is contained in G/TBT/W/341.
[10] CDRM is the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management.
[11] G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2, para. 2; RD/TBT/76.
[12] REFIT is the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme.
[13] G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2, para. 4; RD/TBT/84.
[14] G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1, para. 1.2; RD/TBT/74.
[15] COFEMER is the Mexican Federal Commission on Regulatory Improvement.
[16] G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2, para. 5; G/TBT/W/378.
[17] G/TBT/GEN/143, para. 1.5; RD/TBT/26.
[18] G/TBT/GEN/143, para. 1.2; RD/TBT/35.
[19] G/TBT/GEN/143, para. 1.3; RD/TBT/29.
[20] G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2, para. 3; RD/TBT/79.
[22] G/TBT/W/418, para. 1.7.
[23] G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2, para. 6; RD/TBT/78/Rev.1.
[25] The latest version of the Chairperson's
proposal is contained in JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1. In total,
33 submissions from 17 Members (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia,
Cuba, Egypt, EU, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea, South Africa,
Switzerland, Uganda, US) were discussed during the review period (the full list
of relevant submissions is contained in Annex I to JOB/TBT/119).
[26] The SCSC is the APEC Sub-Committee on Standards and Conformance.
[27] APEC is the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.
[28] G/TBT/GEN/143, para. 1.4; RD/TBT/28. JOB/TBT/119
[29] G/TBT/GEN/174, para. 2.1; RD/TBT/109.
[30] G/TBT/GEN/179; G/TBT/GEN/180.
[31] WP. 6 is the UNECE Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and
Standardization Policies.
[32] G/TBT/GEN/140; G/TBT/GEN/146.
[33] See para. 8.3, below.
[34] Regulatory Cooperation
between Members figured in the Committee's Fifth Triennial Review (G/TBT/26). The Committee held a Workshop on Regulatory Cooperation between
Members on 8-9 November 2011 (G/TBT/W/348).
A Secretariat background document is contained in G/TBT/W/340.
[35] JOB/TBT/125; JOB/TBT/134.
[38] WWTG is the World Wine Trade Group.
[39] WRF is the
APEC Wine Regulatory Forum.
[40] G/TBT/GEN/174, para. 2.2; RD/TBT/107.
[41] G/TBT/W/400/Rev.1, paras 1.4 and
3.1; JOB/TBT/134, para. 5.2(e).
[42] G/TBT/W/400/Rev.1;
G/TBT/W/416.
[44] WP. 29 is the UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations.
[45] G/TBT/GEN/178; RD/TBT/119;
G/TBT/GEN/183.
[46] In line with Article 13.3 of the TBT Agreement.
[47] See para. 8.3, below.
[48] Previous decisions and recommendations on Conformity Assessment
Procedures are contained in Section 2 (Part 1) of G/TBT/1/Rev.12. The latest
Secretariat background note is contained in JOB/TBT/69.
[51] G/TBT/GEN/155, para. 6; RD/TBT/120.
[52] G/TBT/GEN/174, para. 1.1.
[53] NIST is the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
[54] G/TBT/GEN/155, para. 7; RD/TBT/61.
[55] G/TBT/26, para. 59(b). Conformity assessment in relation to technical
infrastructure includes bodies that provide conformity assessment services;
conformity assessment activities such as testing, inspection and certification;
and conformity assessment systems.
[56] The BBN is the Burundian Standardization and Quality Control Bureau.
[58] G/TBT/GEN/156; RD/TBT/64.
[59] G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1, para. 1.2; RD/TBT/74.
[60] G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1, para. 1.3; RD/TBT/75.
[62] PAQI is the Pan-African Quality Infrastructure initiative.
[63] AFRAC is the African Accreditation Cooperation, AFRIMETS is the
Intra-Africa Metrology System, AFSEC is the African Electrotechnical
Standardization Commission and ARSO is the African Organization for
Standardization.
[64] ILAC is the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation. IAF is the International Accreditation Forum.
[65] G/TBT/GEN/174, para. 1.4; RD/TBT/105.
[66] QICA is the Quality Infrastructure Council of the Americas.
[67] COPANT is the Pan American Standards Commission, SIM is the
Inter-American Metrology System and IAAC is the Inter-American Accreditation
Cooperation.
[68] OAS is the Organization of American States.
[69] G/TBT/GEN/174, para. 1.3; RD/TBT/104.
[70] BIPM is the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The
Committee agreed to grant ad hoc observer status to BIPM at the meeting of
27-28 November 2012 (G/TBT/M/58, para. 4.3).
[71] G/TBT/GEN/174, para. 1.2; RD/TBT/103.
[73] CASCO is the ISO Committee on Conformity Assessment.
[74] G/TBT/GEN/155, para. 2; RD/TBT/53.
[75] The "Indicative List" refers to the "Indicative List
of Approaches to Facilitate the Acceptance of the Results of Conformity
Assessment", G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Annex 1 (Part 1), pp. 45-46.
[76] ILAC MRA is the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual
Recognition Arrangement.
[77] IECEE CB scheme is the IEC System of Conformity Assessment Schemes
for Electrotechnical Equipment and Components, Certification Body scheme.
[78] GLP is Good Laboratory Practice.
[80] G/TBT/GEN/155, para. 5; RD/TBT/58.
[81] G/TBT/GEN/155, para. 4; RD/TBT/59.
[84] G/TBT/GEN/155, para. 3; RD/TBT/54.
[86] G/TBT/GEN/148; G/TBT/GEN/165.
[87] G/TBT/GEN/136;
G/TBT/GEN/153; G/TBT/GEN/160; G/TBT/GEN/166; G/TBT/GEN/173.
[88] G/TBT/GEN/139;
G/TBT/GEN/145; G/TBT/GEN/152; G/TBT/GEN/159; G/TBT/GEN/164; G/TBT/GEN/170;
G/TBT/M/64/Rev. 1, para. 3.5.
[89] G/TBT/GEN/135;
G/TBT/GEN/155; G/TBT/GEN/169; RD/TBT/53.
[90] G/TBT/GEN/147; G/TBT/GEN/172.
[91] G/TBT/GEN/140; G/TBT/GEN/146; G/TBT/GEN/178.
[92] G/TBT/GEN/141;
G/TBT/GEN/158.
[94] G/TBT/26, para. 19(c).
[96] See para. 8.3, below.
[97] Previous decisions and recommendations on Standards are contained
in Section 3 (Part 1) of G/TBT/1/Rev.12. The latest Secretariat background note
is contained in JOB/TBT/42 (and JOB/TBT/42/Corr.1).
[99] G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1.
[101] The "Six Principles" refers to the "Decision of the
Committee on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides
and Recommendations with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT
Agreement." G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Annex 2 (Part 1), pp. 47-49.
[104] CEN is the European Committee for Standardization, CENELEC is the
European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization and ETSI is the
European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
[106] ANSI is the American National Standards Institute.
[110] G/TBT/GEN/144, para. 1.6; RD/TBT/31; information
on ISO voting procedures is provided in G/TBT/GEN/135.
[112] The EOS is the Egyptian Organization for Standardization.
[114] G/TBT/GEN/144, para. 1.7; G/TBT/W/357.
[116] It is noted that methods of referencing standards in regulation has
been recognized as a mechanism of GRP (G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 1.1(b)ii, p. 5).
[118] G/TBT/GEN/144, para. 1.3;
G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1, para. 1.4; RD/TBT/83.
[119] OMB is the Office of Management and Budget.
[125] G/TBT/GEN/7/Add.17; G/TBT/GEN/7/Add.18; G/TBT/GEN/7/Add.19; G/TBT/GEN/7/Add.20.
[126] G/TBT/GEN/148; G/TBT/GEN/165.
[127] G/TBT/GEN/136; G/TBT/GEN/153; G/TBT/GEN/160;
G/TBT/GEN/166; G/TBT/GEN/173; G/TBT/GEN/177.
[128] G/TBT/GEN/139; G/TBT/GEN/145; G/TBT/GEN/152;
G/TBT/GEN/159; G/TBT/GEN/164; G/TBT/GEN/170.
[130] G/TBT/GEN/147; G/TBT/GEN/172.
[131] G/TBT/GEN/144, para. 1.8; G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1,
para. 1.6; RD/TBT/82.
[132] G/TBT/GEN/140; G/TBT/GEN/146.
[134] UNFSS is the UN Forum on Sustainability Standards.
[135] UNCTAD
reported on the work of the UNFSS, established jointly by five UN agencies
(FAO, ITC, UNCTAD, UNEP and UNIDO). The objective of UNFSS is to facilitate and
strengthen the effective and active participation by developing countries in
the international dialogue on "voluntary sustainability standards". G/TBT/GEN/138.
[137] See para. 8.3, below.
[139] Previous decisions and
recommendations on Transparency are contained in Section 4 (Part 1) of G/TBT/1/Rev.12.
[140] G/TBT/GEN/150; G/TBT/GEN/151;
G/TBT/M/60, Annex 1, pp. 43-50.
[142] Figures for 2015 are up to and including 6 November 2015.
[143] Previous decisions and recommendations of the Committee on this
topic are listed in G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.5.2, pp. 34-35.
[144] G/TBT/32, para. 16.
[145] G/TBT/GEN/151, paras 5-6.
[146] G/TBT/M/60, Annex 1, Section 3.1; G/TBT/GEN/151, para. 5; RD/TBT/45.
[147] G/TBT/M/60, Annex 1, Section 3.4; G/TBT/GEN/151, para. 5;
RD/TBT/47.
[148] G/TBT/M/60, Annex 1, Section 3.5; G/TBT/GEN/151, para. 5;
RD/TBT/44.
[149] G/TBT/M/60, Annex 1, Section 3.3; G/TBT/GEN/151, para. 5;
RD/TBT/42.
[150] G/TBT/GEN/167, para. 3; RD/TBT/91.
[151] G/TBT/GEN/167, para. 12; RD/TBT/95.
[153] G/TBT/M/60, Annex 1, Section 3.6; G/TBT/GEN/151, para. 5;
RD/TBT/39.
[155] G/TBT/GEN/167, para. 2; RD/TBT/90.
[156] G/TBT/M/60, Annex 1, Section 3.2; G/TBT/GEN/151, para. 5;
RD/TBT/43.
[157] G/TBT/GEN/167, para. 4; RD/TBT/92.
[158] G/TBT/GEN/167, para. 5; RD/TBT/97.
[159] Previous decisions and recommendations of the Committee on this
topic are listed in G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.4.4, pp. 33-34.
[160] Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Czech
Republic, Denmark, EU, Georgia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel,
Japan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden,
Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates, United Kingdom and the United States.
[161] G/TBT/GEN/167, para. 11.
[163] G/TBT/W/398; G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1, paras 2.283-2.297.
[165] G/TBT/GEN/167, para. 9; RD/TBT/94.
[166] The GCC is the Gulf Cooperation Council.
[167] The GSO is the Standardization Organization for the Cooperation
Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. The Committee agreed to grant ad hoc
observer status to GSO at the meeting of 5-6 November 2014 (G/TBT/M/64, para.
4.5).
[168] G/TBT/GEN/167, para. 8; RD/TBT/93.
[170] Previous decisions and recommendations of the Committee on this
topic are listed in G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.2, pp. 17-19.
[171] Lao PDR (G/TBT/2/Add.111); Mali (G/TBT/2/Add.113); Montenegro
(G/TBT/2/Add.110); Senegal (G/TBT/2/Add.115); Seychelles (G/TBT/2/Add.114);
Tajikistan (G/TBT/2/Add.112).
[172] Canada (G/TBT/2/Add.6/Rev.3); Colombia (G/TBT/2/Add.18/Rev.1/Suppl.2);
Kenya (G/TBT/2/Add.86/Rev.1); Rwanda (G/TBT/2/Add.85/Rev.1); Sri Lanka
(G/TBT/2/Add.27/Rev.1); Switzerland (G/TBT/2/Add.7/Rev.2); Trinidad and Tobago
(G/TBT/2/Add.47/Rev.1); Ukraine (G/TBT/2/Add.100/Rev.3, Rev.4 and Rev.5).
[173] G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1, paras. 2.2-2.5; JOB/TBT/107.
[174] Previous decisions and recommendations of the Committee on this
topic are listed in G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.3.1.9, pp. 26-27.
[176] G/TBT/26, para. 43(c).
[177] G/TBT/GEN/151, para. 4; RD/TBT/38.
[178] Previous decisions and recommendations of the Committee on this
topic are listed in G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.4.3, pp. 31-33.
[179] G/TBT/W/418, Section 3.
[180] G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.6, p. 36. See para. 8.3, below.
[182] G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.4.3, pp.
31-33.
[183] G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.6, p. 36. See para. 8.3, below.
[184] Previous decisions and
recommendations on Technical Assistance are contained in Section 5 (Part 1) of
G/TBT/1/Rev.12. The latest Secretariat background note
is contained in JOB/TBT/65.
[187] G/TBT/GEN/156; RD/TBT/66. ACP is the African, Caribbean and Pacific
group of countries.
[188] SIDA is the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.
[189] G/TBT/GEN/156; RD/TBT/56.
[190] KATS is the Korean Agency for technology and Standards.
[191] KSA is the Korean Standards Association.
[192] G/TBT/GEN/156; RD/TBT/57.
[193] USAID is the United States Agency for International Development.
[194] G/TBT/GEN/156; RD/TBT/60; G/TBT/M/58, para 3.4.
[195] The STDF is the Standards and Trade Development Facility.
[197] G/TBT/GEN/148; G/TBT/GEN/165.
[198] G/TBT/GEN/136; G/TBT/GEN/153; G/TBT/GEN/160; G/TBT/GEN/166;
G/TBT/GEN/173; G/TBT/GEN/177.
[199] G/TBT/GEN/139; G/TBT/GEN/145; G/TBT/GEN/152; G/TBT/GEN/159;
G/TBT/GEN/164; G/TBT/GEN/170.
[200] G/TBT/GEN/135; G/TBT/GEN/169.
[201] G/TBT/GEN/147; G/TBT/GEN/172.
[202] G/TBT/GEN/141; G/TBT/GEN/158.
[204] G/TBT/GEN/140; G/TBT/GEN/146; G/TBT/GEN/178.
[205] TBT Committee meeting of 27-28 November 2012 (G/TBT/GEN/137;
RD/TBT/18); TBT Committee meeting of 6-7 March 2013 (G/TBT/GEN/149; RD/TBT/37);
TBT Committee meeting of 30-31 October 2013 (G/TBT/GEN/157; G/TBT/GEN/161;
RD/TBT/67); TBT Committee meeting of 19-20 March 2014 (G/TBT/GEN/163;
RD/TBT/88); TBT Technical Assistance Activities in 2014-2015 (G/TBT/GEN/171; G/TBT/GEN/171/Rev.1;
RD/TBT/101; RD/TBT/112); TBT Technical Assistance Activities in 2015-2016
(G/TBT/GEN/171/Rev.2; G/TBT/GEN/171/Rev.3; RD/TBT/114).
[206] See para. 8.3, below.
[207] In line with the Committee's agreement on a demand-driven approach
to the technical assistance. G/TBT/26, para. 59.
[208] Previous decisions and
recommendations on Special and Differential are contained in Section 6 (Part 1)
of G/TBT/1/Rev.12. The latest Secretariat background
note is contained in JOB/TBT/65.
[211] G/TBT/GEN/156, para. 8; RD/TBT/62.
[213] G/TBT/GEN/156, para. 8; JOB/TBT/71; JOB/TBT/49.
[214] G/TBT/GEN/156, para. 6; RD/TBT/66.
[215] G/TBT/GEN/156, para. 7; RD/TBT/63; RD/TBT/65.
[216] Previous decisions and
recommendations on Operation of the Committee are contained in Section 7 (Part
1) of G/TBT/1/Rev.12. The Annual Reviews of the Implementation and Operation of
the TBT Agreement for 2013 and 2014 are contained in: G/TBT/34; and G/TBT/36.
[217] G/TBT/M/59; G/TBT/M/60; G/TBT/M/61; G/TBT/M/62; G/TBT/M/63;
G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1; G/TBT/M/65; G/TBT/M/66; and G/TBT/M/67.
[220] Figures for 2015 are up to and including 6 November 2015.
[221] G/TBT/GEN/143; G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.1; G/TBT/GEN/143/Add.2;
JOB/TBT/125; JOB/TBT/134.
[222] JOB/TBT/125; JOB/TBT/134.
[223] G/TBT/GEN/144; G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1; JOB/TBT/134.
[224] G/TBT/GEN/155; G/TBT/GEN/174; JOB/TBT/134.
[225] G/TBT/GEN/151; G/TBT/GEN/167; JOB/TBT/125; JOB/TBT/134.
[226] G/TBT/GEN/156; G/TBT/GEN/174.
[227] JOB/TBT/125; JOB/TBT/134.
[228] At the Sixth Triennial Review, Members agreed on the need to focus
and deepen their work and decided to dedicate time to thematic sessions in
response to the specific decisions and recommendations in the Triennial Review
reports, in order to press for greater progress on these issues (G/TBT/32,
para. 26).
[229] This listing is flexible. Members
may agree to include other matters for discussion, or they may agree to
otherwise adapt this work programme to reflect unforeseen developments. The Committee
will organize these thematic sessions based on proposals from Members.
[230] See para. 3.9, above.
[231] See para. 1.8, above.
[232] See para. 2.3, above.
[233] See para. 4.10, above.
[234] G/TBT/1/Rev.12, Section 4.6, p. 36. See para. 5.12, above.
[235] See para. 6.7, above.
[236] See para. 2.3, above.
[237] Submissions are arranged by subject, in reverse chronological
order. Should a submission be relevant to more than one topic it will appear
more than once. More general information, such as the reports provided by the
Chairperson on thematic sessions or information provided by observers is not
included in this list.