COMMITTEE ONTECHNICAL BARRIERS TOTRADE
Draft Minutes oftheMeeting heldon1March 1996
Attached hereto please findthedraftminutes ofthemeeting heldon1March 1996. Delegations
areinvited tosubmit comments, ifany,totheSecretariat (Mrs. Vivien Liu,tel.7395455,and
Mrs. Barbara D'Andrea, tel.7395478)by17May1996.
96-1228RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/TBT/W/24
4April 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-1228)
Committee onTechnical Barriers toTrade
DRAFT MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON1MARCH 1996
Chairperson: Ambassador C.L.Guarda (Chile)
1. TheWTO Committee onTechnical Barriers toTrade helditsfourth meeting on1March 1996.
2. Thefollowing agenda, contained inWTO/AIR/260, wasadopted:
Page
A. Election ofOfficer 2
B. Request forObserver Status bytheOrganization forEconomic Co-operation
andDevelopment (OECD) 2
C. FirstAnnual Review oftheImplementation andOperation ofthe
WTO TBTAgreement under Article 15.3 2
D. FirstAnnual Review oftheCode ofGood Practice forthePreparation,
Adoption andApplication ofStandards inAnnex 3oftheAgreement under
theMinisterial Decision onReview oftheISO/IEC Information Centre Publication 2
E. Statements onImplementation andAdministration oftheAgreement 4
F. Suggestions made attheSpecial Joint Meeting onProcedures forInformation
Exchange oftheCommittees onTechnical Barriers toTrade andSanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures 4
G. Decisions andRecommendations regarding theISO/IEC Code ofGood Practice
onStandardization 7
H. Decisions andRecommendations regarding Testing, Inspection andType Approval 7
I. Decisions andRecommendations regarding Avoidance ofDuplication 10
J. Eco-labelling 10
K. ISO9000 andISO14000 22
L. Other Business 22G/TBT/W/24
Page2
A. ELECTION OFOFFICER
3. TheCommittee elected Ambassador C.L.Guarda (Chile) Chairperson for1996.
B. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS BYTHE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC
CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)
4. TheCommittee agreed togrant observer status totheOrganization forEconomic
Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) onanadhocbasis, pending finalagreement onguidelines
forobserver status forinternational intergovernmental organizations intheWTO.
5. TheChairperson informed theCommittee thataletter hadbeenreceived from theUnited
Nations Economic Commission forEurope requesting observer status intheCommittee andthat
theissue would betaken upatthenextCommittee meeting.
C. FIRST ANNUAL REVIEW OFTHE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OFTHE
WTO TBTAGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 15.3
6. Therepresentative ofJapan asked forclarification onthedefinition oftheobjectives and
rationales listed intable3oftheannual review (G/TBT/3) since fivecategories ofobjectives and
rationales contained inthetablewere notindicated intheTBTAgreement. Referring totable4
"Observation oftherecommended comment period byeachMember", heexpressed concern about
thelarge number ofnotifications made without specifying acomment period. Hesuggested that
relevant dataonurgent notifications should bereflected intable4.
7. Therepresentative oftheUnited States thought itdifficult fortheSecretariat todefine each
category ofobjectives andrationales stated inTable 3.Thistablehadbeendrawn uponthebasis
ofthenotifications submitted byMembers andonlyMembers were abletoindicate theirown
reasons forproposing achange intheirnational regulations. Shesupported theJapanese
suggestion regarding table4.
8. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatthepresent format oftheAnnual Review was
concise andeasytoconsult.
9. TheChairperson explained thattheinformation concerning objectives andrationales listed
intable3could befound indocument G/TBT/W/18. ShesaidthattheJapanese proposal
regarding table4would betaken intoaccount forthepreparation ofsubsequent reviews.
10. TheCommittee agreed toconclude itsFirstAnnual Review onthebasis ofthebackground
documentation contained inG/TBT/3.
D. FIRST ANNUAL REVIEW OFTHE CODE OFGOOD PRACTICE FOR THE
PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OFSTANDARDS INANNEX 3
OFTHE AGREEMENT UNDER THE MINISTERIAL DECISION ONREVIEW OF
THE ISO/IEC INFORMATION CENTRE PUBLICATION
11. TheChairperson drew attention totheWTO TBTStandards Code Directory prepared by
ISO/IEC which contained information received pursuant toparagraphs CandJoftheCode of
Good Practice forthePreparation, Adoption andApplication ofStandards. Sheinformed theG/TBT/W/24
Page3
Committee thatafreecopyoftheDirectory would bedistributed toeachMember andadditional
copies ofthepublication could bepurchased from theISOandtheWTO bookshop.
12. Theobserver from theISOinformed theCommittee thattheISO/IEC Information Centre
hadreceived 6additional notifications ofacceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice by
standardizing bodies andthattheWTO TBTStandards Code Directory would soonbeavailable in
French andSpanish.
13. TheChairperson drew attention todocument G/TBT/CS/1 containing alist(byMember)
ofallstandardizing bodies thathadaccepted theCode ofGood Practice before 31December 1995
andinformed theCommittee thatStandards Australia hadnotified itsacceptance oftheCode of
Good Practice totheISO/IEC Information Centre inNovember 1995 butthenotification of
acceptance hadonlyrecently beenreceived bytheWTO Secretariat. ShesaidthattheSecretariat
would revise documents G/TBT/CS/1 andG/TBT/3 toinclude Standards Australia asoneofthe
standardizing bodies which hadaccepted theCode in1995. Taking thatintoaccount, shenoted
thatattheendof1995, 28standardizing bodies from 26Members hadaccepted theCode ofGood
Practice. Shedrew Members 'attention totheirobligations under Article 4.1oftheAgreement.
14. Therepresentative ofArgentina explained thatthesmall number ofstandardizing bodies
adhering totheCode might beduetolackofawareness ofitsadvantages. Governments should
bearthose advantages inmind, particularly thepossibility ofproviding comments onthestandards
ofother Members.
15. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthattheNorwegian standardizing bodies would accept
theCode ofGood Practice shortly.
16. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities informed theCommittee thatthe
European Telecommunications Standardization Institute (ETSI) hadadhered totheCode ofGood
Practice.
17. Therepresentative ofTurkey saidthattheTurkish Standards Institution would accept the
Code ofGood Practice soon. Thenotification oftheexistence ofwork programme would besent
totheISO/IEC Information Centre inJune/July because thework programme ofTurkish
Standards Institution would startonlyinMay.
18. Therepresentative ofAustralia asked whether anyofthestandardizing bodies which had
accepted theCode ofGood Practice were involved ineco-labelling programmes.
19. Therepresentative oftheUnited States suggested thatareview ofstandardizing bodies
involved ineco-labelling programmes beundertaken when more national standardizing bodies had
accepted theCode ofGood Practice.
20. Therepresentative ofMexico recalled thatintheinformal meeting oftheCommittees on
Trade andEnvironment andTechnical Barriers toTrade, theneedforfurther disciplines on
eco-labelling andforareview ofcompliance ofeco-labelling programmes withexisting disciplines
hadbeenstressed. Shesuggested thatinthefuture itmight beuseful toexamine notifications
under theCode ofGood Practice ofstandardizing bodies ofbothgeneral andspecific work
programmes inparticular relating toeco-labelling.
21. TheChairperson saidthattheISOBulletin, theWTO TBTStandards Code Directory and
thenotifications ofacceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice contained indocument series
G/TBT/CS/N/ provided information ontheactivities ofstandardizing bodies.G/TBT/W/24
Page4
22. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
E. STATEMENTS ONIMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OFTHE
AGREEMENT
23. TheChairperson reminded Members thatunder Article 15.2oftheTBTAgreement, each
Member should promptly inform theCommittee inwriting ofmeasures inexistence ortaken to
ensure theimplementation andadministration oftheAgreement. Shedrew attention todocument
G/TBT/1/Rev.1 containing decisions adopted bytheCommittee concerning thecontents ofwritten
statements. Shesaidthatuptothepresent onlyfourMembers hadsubmitted theirstatements
(G/TBT/2 andaddenda). Sheurged Members tosubmit theirstatements promptly, since thiswas
oneofthemain indicators ofimplementation oftheAgreement byMembers andalsooneofthe
main elements tobereported totheSingapore Ministerial Conference inDecember 1996.
24. Therepresentative ofUnited States stressed theimportance ofsubmitting thestatements
under Article 15.2oftheAgreement.
25. Therepresentatives ofCanada andSwitzerland saidthattheirdelegations would submit the
statements shortly.
26. Therepresentative ofSlovenia saidthathisdelegation would submit thestatement and
notify acceptance oftheCode ofGood Practice soon.
27. Therepresentative ofIndonesia saidthattheIndonesian statement made under the
Tokyo Round TBTAgreement contained indocument TBT/1/Add.38 remained valid.
28. TheChairperson invited therepresentative ofIndonesia tosubmit thisinformation in
writing toenable theSecretariat toissue theIndonesian statement formally under the
WTO TBTAgreement.
29. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed thattheChairperson would
sendreminders atthebeginning ofMay1996 todelegations whose statements hadnotyetbeen
received.
F. SUGGESTIONS MADE ATTHE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING ONPROCEDURES FOR
INFORMATION EXCHANGE OFTHE COMMITTEES ONTECHNICAL BARRIERS
TOTRADE AND SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES
30. TheChairperson drew attention tothereport ontheSpecial Joint Meeting onProcedures
forInformation Exchange oftheCommittees onTechnical Barriers toTrade andSanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (G/TBT/W/16) which contained suggestions andproposals made atthat
meeting.
31. Shenoted thatfornotifications ofregulations which might contain elements relevant to
boththeTBTandSPSAgreements, ithadbeensuggested thatMembers could either submit a
single notification, clearly indicating which elements oftheproposed regulation were sanitary or
phytosanitary measures andwhich were subject totheTBTAgreement, anditwould becirculated
asbothanSPSnotification andaTBTnotification bytheSecretariat. Alternatively, Members
could submit twoseparate notifications, oneunder theSPSAgreement andtheother under the
TBTAgreement, eachofwhich would contain onlythose elements oftheproposed regulation
covered bytherespective Agreements.G/TBT/W/24
Page5
32. Shereminded Members thattheyhadbeenencouraged to:(i)filloutcompletely and
correctly notification formats tomake more efficient theprocessing ofnotifications; (ii)usefax
facilities totheextent possible andacknowledge receipt ofrequested documents tofacilitate the
processing ofrequests forbasic documents mentioned innotifications; (iii)submit notifications in
different WTO working languages, iftheywere prepared inthose languages; and(iv)give
favourable consideration torequests forextension ofcomment periods inviewofdelays often
experienced inreceiving andtranslating relevant documents. Shenoted thatitwasadecision of
theCommittee toholdmeetings forinformation exchange onabiennial basis (G/TBT/1/Rev.2)
andithadbeensuggested thatsuchmeetings should coincide more closely withregular meetings
oftheCommittee.
33. Shedrew attention totheproposals made withrespect tothenotification format under
Articles 2,3,5and7oftheTBTAgreement that: (i)under point 2,theauthority oragency
designated tohandle comments regarding thespecific notification should beindicated; (ii)under
point 5,thelanguage(s) inwhich notified documents were available should beindicated; and
(iii)under point 9,thetitleshould be"Proposed dates ofadoption andentry intoforce" sothat
information regarding thedateofadoption andthedateofentry intoforce could beprovided
separately.
34. Therepresentative oftheUnited States suggested thatunder point 9,thetitleshould be
"Proposed dateofadoption" and"Proposed dateofentry intoforce", andthatunder point 2,it
should beindicated iftheagency responsible fordrafting proposed regulations differed from the
agency responsible forhandling comments.
35. Referring topoint 2,therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities suggested replacing
thewording "should beindicated" by"canbeindicated".
36. TheCommittee agreed tomodify thetitles inthenotification format asfollows: (i)under
point 2,"Agency responsible" and"Agency orauthority designated tohandle comments regarding
thenotification canbeindicated ifdifferent from above"; (ii)under point 5,"Title, number of
pages andlanguage(s) ofthenotified document"; and(iii)under point 9,"Proposed dateof
adoption" and"Proposed dateofentry intoforce".
37. TheChairperson recalled thatatthatmeeting ithadalsobeensuggested thatthepossibility
ofdeveloping asingle format forSPSandTBTnotifications should beconsidered.
38. Therepresentative oftheUnited States clarified thatherdelegation hadsuggested in
conjunction withCanada thatitmight beuseful tominimize anyunnecessary differences between
thecontents inwording ofSPSandTBTnotification formats toavoid confusion. However, the
proposal wasnottohaveasingle notification format forthetwoAgreements. Shenevertheless
hoped thatanychange intheTBTnotification format could beadopted alsobytheSPS
Committee.
39. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthattheaimofthesuggestion wastoreduce any
unnecessary administrative burden andfacilitate theuseoftheformats byenquiry points.
40. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted thattheSPSnotification format
wasinitially prepared onthebasis oftheTBTformat, butgradually small changes hadbeen
introduced toaccommodate theSPSnotification system. Heconsidered theproposal unnecessary.
41. Therepresentative ofAustralia noted thatthetwoAgreements hadsimilarities. Although
asingle format wasanoption forMembers touse,itwasnotamandatory procedure.G/TBT/W/24
Page6
42. Therepresentative oftheSecretariat saidthatMembers could design formats fortheirown
use,andtheSecretariat would continue toissue SPSandTBTnotifications separately.
43. TheChairperson concluded thattheexisting practice andnotification formats should be
maintained. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
44. TheChairperson drew attention totheproposal ofdeveloping aformat fornotifications
under Article 10.7oftheAgreement. Shenoted thatnonotification hadbeenreceived from
Members under Article 10.7.
45. Therepresentative oftheUnited States suggested inviting theSecretariat toprepare adraft
notification format forconsideration atthenextCommittee meeting.
46. TheCommittee agreed tothesuggestion oftheUnited States.
47. TheChairperson drew attention totheproposals made concerning enquiry points.
48. With respect totheListofEnquiry Points (G/TBT/ENQ/), theCommittee agreed toadopt
therecommendation toinclude E-mail addresses, where available, inthedocument.
49. Therepresentative ofCanada proposed thattheListofEnquiry Points should beissued as
derestricted document. Shealsoproposed derestricting TBTnotifications under Articles 2,3,5
and7oftheAgreement.
50. Therepresentatives oftheEuropean Communities andAustralia endorsed theproposals
made byCanada.
51. TheCommittee agreed toderestrict documents containing theListofEnquiry Points and
theTBTnotifications under Articles 2,3,5and7oftheAgreement.
52. TheChairperson drew attention tothesuggestion thattheSecretariat prepare abrochure
withadescription ofthefunctions ofEnquiry Points, highlighting thebasic requirements and
recommendations andidentifying good practices inthisregard.
53. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthere wasnoimmediate needto
prepare suchabrochure. However, hethought thatstatements ontheimplementation and
administration oftheAgreement under article 15.2would beimportant ingiving newMembers a
clear picture ofhowtheTBTAgreement should beimplemented. Theneedforabrochure could
bere-examined later.
54. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recalled thatduring thetransitional period ofentry
intoforce oftheWTO TBTAgreement, there hadbeenasuggestion from several delegations of
using aprivate consultant toprepare abrochure describing theAgreement anditsbenefits for
Members. Although recognizing thedifficulties theSecretariat might faceinpreparing sucha
document, including financial difficulties, nevertheless sheconsidered itavaluable exercise.
55. Therepresentative ofCanada noted thepublication "Business Guide totheUruguay
Round" prepared bytheInternational Trade Centre (ITC) andtheCommonwealth Secretariat
explaining theWTO andtheUruguay Round ingeneral. Hethought thatsome oftheinformation
itcontained wasuseful andsuggested thattheSecretariat could circulate theparts relevant tothe
TBTAgreement toMembers forinformation. Thisproposal wassupported bytherepresentative
oftheUnited States.G/TBT/W/24
Page7
56. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed toinvite theSecretariat to
circulate toMembers theparts relevant totheTBTAgreement ofthepublication "Business Guide
totheUruguay Round" prepared byITCandtheCommonwealth Secretariat.
G. DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE ISO/IEC CODE OF
GOOD PRACTICE ONSTANDARDIZATION
57. TheChairperson recalled thatatitsprevious meeting theCommittee hadhelddiscussions
ondecisions andrecommendations taken bytheTokyo Round TBTCommittee (TBT/16/Rev.7
andG/TBT/W/14) andagreed toinclude decisions andrecommendations relating tothe"ISO/IEC
Code ofGood Practice forStandardization", "Testing, Inspection andType Approval" and
"Avoidance ofDuplication" intheagenda ofitsnextmeeting.
58. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recalled thatatthelastCommittee meeting, her
delegation hadbeeninvited toprepare aproposal updating thedecision taken bytheTokyo Round
TBTCommittee ontheISO/IEC Code ofGood Practice forStandardization. Shesaidthatat
present herdelegation wasnotinaposition toputforward aproposal, butithadbeenundertaking
consultations withother delegations toascertain ifthere were possible difficulties inimplementing
theWTO TBTCode ofGood Practice. Sherequested thisagenda itembekeptopen.
59. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stressed theneedtoavoid arivalry
between theISO/IEC Code ofGood Practice onStandardization andtheTBTCode ofGood
Practice. Hethought thattheideaofpresenting thetwocodes asalternative would undermine the
benefits ofeither oneofthem. Hestressed thattheWTO TBTCode waspartofthewhole
WTO TBTAgreement. Hesuggested thatitwould bemore fruitful tolookintohowthetwo
codes could bemutually complementary orhowtoavoid duplication ofwork andany
inconsistency.
60. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made. TheChairperson saidthatthe
Committee would come backtotheitemifanyproposal wasbrought forward bydelegations.
H. DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TESTING, INSPECTION
AND TYPE-APPROVAL
61. TheChairperson saidattheprevious Committee meeting ithadbeenconsidered useful to
invite representatives ofinternational standardizing bodies andconformity assessment systems to
briefMembers onthelatest developments intheirwork. Sheinvited therepresentative from the
ISO/CASCO (Committee onConformity Assessment) tooutline toMembers thelatest
developments inISO'swork relating torules andguides inconformity assessment activities before
theCommittee started discussions onitsownrecommendations. Shesaidthatarepresentative
from theInternational Laboratory Accreditation Conference (ILAC) would beinvited atthenext
meeting toinform theCommittee onILAC 'swork relating totheAgreement.
62. Therepresentative from theISO/CASCO explained thatCASCO (theISO'spolicy
development Committee onConformity Assessment), thesuccessor ofCERTICO (theISO
Committee onCertification), wascreated in1985 toextend from thefieldofcertification tocover
allconformity assessment activities, inparticular quality systems. CASCO membership wasopen
toallinterested ISOmember bodies, IECnational members andtointernational organizations in
liaison asobserver members.
63. CASCO meetings were heldannually andtheirterms ofreference included (i)thestudy of
means ofassessing theconformity ofproducts, processes, services andquality systems toG/TBT/W/24
Page8
appropriate standards ortechnical specifications; (ii)thepreparation ofinternational guides,
published asISO/IEC Guides ontesting, inspection andcertification ofproducts, processes and
services; (iii)theassessment ofquality systems, testing laboratories, inspection bodies,
certification andaccreditation bodies; (iv)thepromotion ofmutual recognition andacceptance of
national andregional conformity assessment systems; and(v)thepromotion oftheuseof
international standards fortesting, inspection, certification, assessment andrelated purposes.
64. Thework ofCASCO wascarried outinworking groups consisting ofasmall number of
experts designated bytheISOmember bodies andtheIECnational committees, bearing inmind
theneedtoensure abalanced representation ofinterested parties. Thecurrent work programme
included: (i)thereview ofexisting guides onproduct certification, assessment ofquality systems,
acceptance ofcertification bodies, inspection bodies andtesting laboratories; (ii)thepreparation
ofnewguides inresponse torequests arising from theILAC; and(iii)studies topromote the
recognition andacceptance ofcertification systems established onthebasis ofISO/IEC guidelines.
65. Inorder toclarify theterminological usage ofterms, ISO/IEC Guide 2waspublished in
1976 andwasregularly updated. However, shenoted thatconformity assessment activities
continued tofaceterminology problems, suchasthedefinitions of"certification", "accreditation"
and"conformity assessment" because procedures forconformity assessment varied significantly
among countries.
66. Intheearly 1980s, CERTICO guides dealtmainly withproduct certification andthe
related supplier 'sdeclaration. These included:
- ISO/IEC Guide 23:1982 Methods ofindicating conformity withstandards fora
third-party certification systems;
- ISO/IEC Guide 27:1983 Guidelines forcorrective action tobetaken bya
certification body intheevent ofmisuse ofitsmark ofconformity;
- ISO/IEC Guide 28:1982 General rules foramodel third-party certification system
forproducts;
- ISO/IEC Guide 22:1982 Information onmanufacturer 'sdeclaration
(revision dueforpublication mid1996).
67. Inorder tomeettheneedforinternational harmonization ofother conformity assessment
approaches besides product certification CERTICO wasreplaced byCASCO. Subsequently, ISO
andILAC accelerated thetrend towards international harmonization ofother conformity
assessment approaches besides product certification. TheGuides published byCASCO since 1985
reflected CASCO 'sattention toquality systems andrequirements forbodies other thancertifiers.
These Guides included:
- ISO/IEC Guide 48:1986 Guidelines forathird-party assessment andregistration of
asupplier 'squality system;
- ISO/IEC Guide 53:1988 Anapproach totheutilization ofasupplier 'squality
system inthird-party product certification;
- ISO/IEC Guide 56:1989 Anapproach tothereview byacertification body ofits
owninternal quality system;
- ISO/IEC Guide 57:1991 Guidelines forthepresentation ofinspection result;G/TBT/W/24
Page9
- ISO/IEC Guide 58:1993 Calibration andtesting laboratory accreditation systems -
General requirements foroperation andrecognition.
68. Intheearly 1990's,major developments inquality system certification/registration, based
ontheISO9000 series ofstandards, hadgiven risetotheneedfordeveloping Guides onsuch
certification andrelated accreditation activities. Shesaidthatthecurrent trend wastoprepare
guides ofamore "horizontal/generic" nature, because "horizontal" guides were flexible toaddress
essential requirements inawiderange ofactivities. ISO/IEC Guide 60:1994 Code ofgood
practice forconformity assessment wasdeveloped intending toensure openness andtransparency
withanoptimum degree oforder, coherence andeffectiveness inworld-wide conformity
assessment processes.
69. Shementioned thatthethree reference ISO/IEC guides ontesting oninspection activities
were:
- ISO/IEC Guide 25-1990 General requirements forthecompetence ofcalibration and
testing laboratories;
- ISO/IEC Guide 39-1988 General requirements fortheacceptance ofinspection bodies;
and
- Guide 43onLaboratory Proficiency Testing developed inclose cooperation withILAC.
ShesaidthattheGuides 25and39were under revision andwould bepublished during 1996.
Guide 43wasready forfinalapproval. Sherecalled thattheGATT TBTCommittee had
recognized ISO/IEC Guides 25,39and43andrecommended theiruse. Shehoped thatthe
updated versions oftheguides would receive thesame recognition bytheWTO.
70. CASCO 'smost recent work wasextended toincorporate newconcepts inquality system
management anditsaccreditation. Newguides were being developed including:
- ISO/IEC Guide 61:General requirements forassessment andaccreditation of
certification/registration bodies (scheduled forpublication inApril 1996);
- ISO/IEC Guide 62:General requirements forbodies operating assessment and
certification/registration ofquality systems (would supersede ISO/IEC 48); and
- ISO/CASCO/228 (Rev.2) (future ISO/IEC Guide 65):General requirements for
bodies operating product certification systems (expected tobepublished bytheend
of1996 andwould supersede ISO/IEC Guide 40).
71. ShesaidthatISO/IEC Guide 61setoutguidelines forabody tofollow ifitwastobe
recognized atanational orinternational levelascompetent andreliable inassessing and
accrediting certification/registration bodies. Conformance totherequirements ofthisdocument
willpromote equivalence ofnational systems andfacilitate agreements onmutual recognition of
accreditation between suchbodies. ISO/IEC Guides 61and62would provide international
guidelines fortheoperation andaccreditation ofquality system registration/certification bodies and
would serve asreferences forthesetting upofQSAR system (Quality System Assessment
Recognition) established bytheISOandIEC. ISO/IEC Guides 61and65were intended to
provide thebasic requirements fortheoperation andaccreditation ofproduct certification systems.
These would bepublished during 1996. Shehoped thattheycould beconsidered reference
documents intheTBTAgreement.G/TBT/W/24
Page10
72. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatement made.
I. DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AVOIDANCE OF
DUPLICATION
73. TheChairperson noted thatthe"Decision andRecommendation regarding Avoidance of
Duplication" referred toanadhocarrangements withtheFAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius
Commission (TBT/16/Rev.7).
74. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatavoidance ofduplication withother standardizing
bodies wasveryimportant, notonlywiththeFAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission but
alsowithother standardizing bodies. Heproposed toamend theterm"Codex Alimentarius
Commission" contained inthedecision andrecommendation taken bytheTokyo Round
TBTCommittee toread"Codex Alimentarius Commission andother technical bodies".
75. Therepresentative oftheUnited States asked forclarification from Japan ontheterm
"technical bodies" andwhether theyreferred tointernational standardizing bodies.
76. Therepresentative ofJapan saidhisauthorities hadseveral standardizing bodies inmind.
However, hisdelegation needed more timetoreflect ontheissue andtoconsult withthe
Chairperson.
77. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made andtheitemwasleftpending.
J. ECO-LABELLING
78. TheChairperson recalled thatatitslastmeeting, theWTO TBTCommittee agreed to
pursue discussions oneco-labelling injointinformal meetings withtheCommittee onTrade and
Environment. Ajointinformal meeting hadbeenheldwiththeCTE on27February. Atthat
meeting, representatives from theUnited States, European Communities, theCzech Republic, the
Nordic countries, Chile, Japan andCanada presented theirnational andregional eco-labelling
programmes. Apaper (G/TBT/W/21) hadbeenprepared byCanada topromote discussions onthe
issue.
79. Therepresentative ofCanada, introduced hisdelegation 'sproposal inWT/CTE/W/21.
Eco-labelling could beanimportant toolforencouraging resource andmanufacturing industries to
adopt higher standards ofenvironmental protection. Granting eco-labels toenvironmentally
preferable products andservices wasdesigned toinfluence consumer purchasing behaviour and
provide opportunities forincreased market share. Eco-labelling programmes were valid
environmental policy instruments which must bedeveloped andimplemented inamanner
consistent withfundamental WTO disciplines ofnon-discrimination andnational treatment.
80. Hesaidthatmany delegations were concerned about thepossible introduction of
unincorporated (i.e., non-product related) PPMs intotheWTO. Thebestwaytohandle this
concern wastolimitthepossible cover ofunincorporated PPMs tovoluntary eco-labelling
programmes, i.e.,standards. Hisdelegation wasnotproposing tointerpret thedefinition of
technical regulation. Some hadargued thatunincorporated PPMs-based measures were not
consistent withnon-discrimination andnational treatment obligations oftheGATT 1994 andthe
TBTAgreement. However, while there wasnoscope fortechnical regulations based upon
unincorporated PPMs, thesituation waslessclear withrespect tostandards. Hethought that
voluntary eco-labelling programmes should notbeexcluded from TBTcoverage onlyonthebasisG/TBT/W/24
Page11
thatthelife-cycle approach (LCA) might result inastandard thatmight ormight notfallwithin
thescope oftheTBT.
81. From anenvironmental perspective, LCA wasanintegral partofeco-labelling
programmes. LCA considered theenvironmental impact ateachstage oftheproduct 'slife,and
eco-labelling programme criteria were developed accordingly. Where thegreatest impact wasat
theconsumption (i.e., energy orwater consumption ofhome appliances) orfinaldisposal
(e.g., batteries, lubricating oil)stage theresulting eco-labelling criteria would belargely
product-related andcharacteristic orperformance-based. These criteria were nodifferent from
other voluntary standards andshould besubject toexisting TBTdisciplines. Where, however, the
LCA indicated thatsignificant environmental impact wasattheproduction stage (e.g., paper
products), theresulting eco-labelling criteria could haveastrong component ofunincorporated
PPMs. From atrade perspective, itwasimportant thateco-labelling programmes besubject to
disciplines toreduce thepotential forprotectionist abuse.
82. Referring toprinciple (d)ofthepaper, heproposed thattheTBTAgreement beinterpreted
tocover theuseofcertain standards based onunincorporated PPMs involuntary eco-labelling
programmes, provided these programmes were developed according tomultilaterally-agreed
guidelines consistent withthebasic obligations oftheGATT 1994 andoftheTBTAgreement.
Guidelines suchasthose under development intheISOandtheGlobal Eco-labelling Network
(GEN) andcomplementary work carried outbyUNEP would reduce thepossibility of
protectionist abuse andtrade discrimination. These guidelines were expected tobemore onthe
levelofprocedures andmethodologies rather thanspecific bench marks. Thisapproach thus
acknowledged thatspecific environmental standards might varyasafunction oflocal
environmental absorptive capacities.
83. With respect totheimplementation oftheguidelines, hesaidhisdelegation 'sanalysis was
stillincomplete. However, hesuggested thatthebasic transparency disciplines ofthe
TBTAgreement andtheCode ofGood Practice should apply. TheuseofLCA made itmore
important forforeign anddomestic producers toparticipate inthedevelopment ofsuchstandards
from theearliest stage andtherequirement under theCode ofGood Practice forsemi-annual
publication ofthework programme would provide thisopportunity. Thiscould reduce therisk
thatstandards reflected unique national production factors ortechnologies. Furthermore, the
requirement toallow 60daysforcomments would reinforce theopportunity toprovide afinal
"check" onthedraftstandard. While respecting theintegrity ofLCA andthusthepossibility for
standards based onunincorporated PPMs, thepreference should beforperformance-based
standards asstated inArticle 2.8oftheTBTAgreement andParagraph IoftheCode ofGood
Practice. Hebelieved thework carried outinGEN andISOwasinlinewiththese disciplines.
According tothecurrent draftofISOGuiding Principles andProcedures onEnvironmental
Labelling, suchenvironmental guidelines "shall becapable ofdemonstrating thatproducts meeting
thecriteria fulfil thelabelling objective ofreducing environmental impact; thedevelopment and
selection ofcriteria forenvironmental labels shallbebased onscientific methodology; andthe
establishment ofcriteria, aswellastheirreview andrevisions, should betheresult ofimpartial
decisions".
84. Hereiterated hisproposal thatthejointCTE/CTBT should consider interpreting thescope
oftheTBTAgreement tocover theuseofcertain standards based onunincorporated PPMs for
voluntary eco-labelling programmes andlooked forward tocontinuing discussions oftheissue.
Thecomments, concerns andqueries ofother delegations would assist inthefurther refinement of
hisproposal.
85. Therepresentative ofBrazil stated thateco-labelling schemes fellunder thescope andthe
disciplines oftheTBTagreement. Hisdelegation hadtraditionally heldtheposition thatG/TBT/W/24
Page12
unincorporated PPMs were notunder thescope oftheTBTAgreement. However, itrecognized
thatLCA ineco-labelling programmes wasbased alsoonunincorporated PPMs, andithadnotyet
decided whether thiswasasufficient reason tointerpret theTBTAgreement toaccommodate
unincorporated PPMs. Hesupported theconclusions contained insections (a),(b),and(c)ofthe
Canadian proposal. However, hereserved hisposition ontheambiguity ofthedefinition of
"standard" intheTBTAgreement, asstated inCanada 'sproposal, since, inhisview, itdidnot
leave anyroom foraccommodating unincorporated PPMs. Hesaidthatresults inthisareashould
notbetaken inisolation butwere conditioned onanoverall understanding ofother Items ofthe
work programme.
86. Therepresentative ofArgentina saidthere were risksimplied inCanada 'sproposal to
interpret thescope oftheTBTAgreement tocover theuseofcertain standards based on
unincorporated PPMs byeco-labelling programmes, provided these standards were developed
according tomultilaterally agreed guidelines. Atpresent, Members could notagree onwhether
unincorporated PPMs were covered bytheTBTAgreement. Canada 'sproposal implied that
Members would losethebenefit ofthedoubt and,asother delegations indicated, probably losethe
righttochallenge under thedispute settlement mechanism.
87. However, theCanadian proposal alsohadsome benefits. Itrelied onthe"equivalency"
aspect, thepossibility toquestion unincorporated PPMs when notconsistent withinternationally
agreed guidelines, andthepossibility tolimitunincorporated PPMs expanding intotherestofthe
system, particularly intotechnical regulations. TheCanadian proposal would notimply that
unincorporated PPMs should notcomply withother TBTprinciples suchnon-discrimination,
national treatment, avoidance ofunnecessary obstacles totrade andtransparency. Therefore, he
looked atitwithsympathy.
88. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthefirstissue tobeaddressed before
anyviewcould bereached ontheadequacy ofexisting rules ortheneedforfurther oneswasthe
extent towhich existing rules infactapplied toeco-labelling schemes. With respect tothe
application oftheTBTAgreement tovoluntary eco-labelling schemes based onaLCA, suchasthe
ECeco-labelling scheme, herecalled thathisdelegation atthemeeting oftheCTE inOctober,
hadexpressed theviewthatthere were legaluncertainties concerning thefullcoverage of
voluntary eco-labelling schemes based onaLCA under theTBTAgreement. Other delegations at
thatmeeting, incontrast, hadargued thattheTBTAgreement applied fullytoschemes ofthis
type. Hethought theCanadian proposal, whilst concluding thattheapplication ofthe
TBTAgreement wasnotabsolutely clear, supported theviewthattheTBTAgreement applied
fullytoschemes ofthistype. Themain issue tobeconsidered waswhether ornotvoluntary
eco-labelling schemes based onLCA fellwithin thedefinition of"standard" inAnnex Itothe
TBTAgreement. Theinclusion oftheword "related" before "processes andproduction methods"
could, infact,beinterpreted ashaving theeffect ofexcluding from thescope oftheAgreement
those rules, guidelines andcharacteristics which concerned unincorporated PPMs. Document
WT/CTE/W/10 confirmed thattheintention ofnegotiators oftheTBTAgreement wastoexclude
from itscoverage PPM-based specifications which didnotaffect theproduct assuch.
89. However, others argued thatthelabelling requirements concerning unincorporated PPMs
were stillcovered bytheTBTAgreement inviewofthefactthatthesecond sentence ofthe
definition of"standard" didnotspecify, asregards terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or
labelling requirements, thattheprocess orproduction methods towhich suchrequirement applied
must be"related" totheproducts. Some delegations hadalsodeclared thatpursuant tothe
decision adopted bytheTBTCommittee thatmandatory labelling requirements were subject to
TBTprovisions regardless ofthekindofinformation provided onthelabel, byimplication
voluntary eco-labelling standards should alsobesubject toallrelevant TBTprovisions.G/TBT/W/24
Page13
90. However, theECconsidered thatthisposition resulted from amisconception about the
truenature ofeco-labelling schemes. Eco-labelling schemes were notmerely labelling regulations
forstandards butamark ofconformity toaseries ofsubstantive criteria, eachofwhich hadthe
potential ofbeing astandard oratechnical regulation onitsown. TheMexican regulation which
hadprompted thedecision oftheTBTCommittee wasapurelabelling requirement andnotamark
ofconformity toasubstantive standard ortechnical regulation. Accordingly, itsonlyimplication
wasthatanyrequirements concerning theeco-label itself were subject totheTBTAgreement,
regardless oftheircontent.
91. Itcould thusbeargued thateco-labelling schemes based onLCA, which bydefinition
included bothproduct-related andunincorporated PPM criteria, were notentirely covered bythe
TBTAgreement. Apartial coverage ofeco-labelling schemes based onLCA excluding
unincorporated PPMs criteria waspossible intheory, ifeachofthecriteria established fora
category ofproducts wasconsidered asaseparate rule,guideline orcharacteristic. According to
thisapproach, those criteria which concerned product characteristics orproduct-related PPMs
would beconsidered asfalling outside thescope oftheAgreement. However, apartial coverage
would notmake sense asanoutcome tothediscussions ontheissue. Intheoperation ofmany
eco-labelling schemes, including theECeco-labelling scheme, allthecriteria established fora
specific category ofproducts -whether related totheproduct itself ortothePPM used-hadtobe
taken jointly intoaccount when awarding thelabels. Furthermore, itwould notmeettheconcerns
expressed intheCTE'sdeliberations ontheapplication ofPPM-related criteria toimported
products.
92. TheECtherefore remained oftheviewthatthere waslegaluncertainty about theextent to
which theTBTAgreement applied toeco-labelling schemes based onLCA. Herepeated his
delegation 'sproposals attheOctober meeting to(i)ensure transparency intheoperation of
eco-labelling schemes asthefirstpriority; (ii)avoid trade distortions; (iii)allow thecontinued use
ofLCA, and(iv)takeintoaccount thespecific needs ofdeveloping countries.
93. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saiditwasgenerally accepted thateco-labels not
involving unincorporated PPMs were covered bytheTBTAgreement. Since most eco-labels were
ofavoluntary nature, theywould beconsidered tobestandards. Delegations whohadsuggested
thateco-labels involving unincorporated PPMs felloutside thescope oftheAgreement relied on
thefirstsentence ofthedefinition ofstandard. However, hisdelegation believed that,following
thesecond sentence ofthedefinition, eco-labels based onunincorporated PPMs fellunder the
TBTAgreement. Herecalled theTokyo Round TBTCommittee decision onthecoverage ofthe
Agreement withrespect tolabelling thatlabelling wascovered regardless ofthecontent ofthe
label. TheWTO TBTCommittee hadsubsequently reaffirmed thatDecision. The
TBTAgreement provided sufficient flexibility tocover unincorporated PPMs andWTO rules
could permit theapplication ofinnovative environmental policy tools. Itwasimportant tofinda
common understanding oftherelevant applicable rules since itwasdifficult todiscuss the
adequacy ofdisciplines from atrade andenvironment perspective without anagreed baseline.
With respect totheECstatement thateco-labels were notmerely labelling regulations for
standards butamark ofconformity, hepointed outthatthesecond sentence ofthedefinition of
standard intheTBTAgreement covered marking requirements.
94. Thediscussions intheCTE hadsofarfocused oneco-seals granted byathirdparty onthe
basis oflife-cycle considerations. However, there were other types ofprogrammes suchas
manufacturers 'claims, report cardtypelabels, and"single issue" eco-labels suchas"recyclable".
Itwould beuseful forMembers toreflect andshare views ontheimplications ofvarious types of
eco-labelling programmes andontheconsiderations thatdesigners andimplementers of
eco-labelling schemes might takeintoaccount; forexample, toadequately recognize differing
environmental conditions inthehome country andother parts oftheworld, andtoaccommodateG/TBT/W/24
Page14
different approaches thatproduce anequivalent, environmentally beneficial result. Hebelieved
thateco-labelling schemes should bedesigned toensure theyprovided sufficient, accurate
information toconsumers ontherelative environmental impacts ofcompeting products. Inthis
respect, theprinciples oftruthfulness, scientific basis andsubstantiability were particularly
relevant; labels should notmislead consumers bymaking claims thatcould notbe"substantiated".
95. Transparency ofeco-labelling programmes wasessential inavoiding potential trade
difficulties andhadimportant benefits from theenvironmental perspective since itincreased
participation byinterested parties insuchprogrammes. Therefore, itwould beuseful fortheCTE
andTBTCommittee todevelop acommon understanding ofhoweco-labelling programmes were
covered under current WTO disciplines, toidentify areas associated withthedevelopment of
eco-labelling programmes withgapsinexisting transparency provisions, and,asappropriate,
amplify current WTO transparency requirements. Heproposed transparency, withanopportunity
forpublic input, ateachcritical stage oftheprogramme 'sdevelopment: (i)theestablishment or
existence ofaprogramme; (ii)theselection ofproducts considered forcriteria development;
(iii)thedevelopment ofanylifecycle andscientific considerations usedtounderpin criteria
development; (iv)thedraftcriteria forproduct groups, whether neworsubstantially revised;
(v)thedevelopment ofanyinterpretive orexplanatory documentation, including scientific
documentation, necessary tounderstand howthecriteria were tobeimplemented; and(vi)the
means bywhich non-domestic environmental protection practices would betaken intoaccount in
determining product eligibility.
96. TheTBTAgreement contained specific transparency obligations forbothmandatory and
voluntary measures (publication, notification andcomment period). However, akeyquestion was
atwhatstage aneco-labelling programme wasconsidered byMembers tobe"draft" andwhether
thatincorporated thesixelements identified foreco-labelling programmes. Herecalled that
according totheDecision taken bytheTBTCommittee onthetiming ofnotifications, "a
notification should bemade when adraftwiththecomplete textofaproposed technical regulation
orprocedures forassessment ofconformity isavailable andwhen amendments canstillbe
introduced andtaken intoaccount". Forinstance, indeveloping eco-labelling programmes based
onlife-cycle considerations, itwould benecessary todefine theproduct subject toaneco-label,
perform alife-cycle inventory oftheenvironmental impacts oftheproduct andprepare adraft
standard based onthatinventory. Infact,oncethedraftstandard hadbeendeveloped, the
opportunity formeaningful input could besignificantly narrowed bydecisions taken ateachofthe
previous stages. Ifthefirstopportunity forcomment came onlyafteradraftstandard hasbeen
prepared itcould beimpossible toinfluence thedecision onproduct definition because the
standards body would havealready made asignificant investment intimeandresources inthe
preparation ofthelife-cycle information. There wasnostandard methodology forperforming
life-cycle inventories andthusconsiderable room existed forhonest disagreement ontheresults. It
would beuseful fortheCTE andCTBT, meeting jointly orseparately, toprovide andearly
opportunity fordelegations toexchange views astoatwhatpoint intheprocess ofdevelopment of
aneco-label thetransparency obligations oftheTBTAgreement required thatanopportunity be
provided forinput from allinterested parties. Ifaviewarose thatcritical points inthe
development ofeco-labels might notbecovered bysuchobligations, itmight beuseful forthe
Committees toconsider whether itwould bedesirable toclarify oraddtoexisting transparency
obligations.
97. Therepresentative ofMexico agreed withpoints (a),(b)and(c)ofCanada 'sproposal but
expressed concern onpoint (d).Sheshared theviews expressed byBrazil andAustralia regarding
theissue ofunincorporated PPMs, andsought clarifications from Canada onthedefinition of
multilaterally-agreed guidelines oneco-labelling. Canada 'sproposal tocreate akindofderogation
forlegitimizing theuseofunincorporated PPMs ineco-labelling based onmultilaterally-agreed
criteria, wasparallel totheproposals made under item1oftheCTE'sagenda. OneofthecriteriaG/TBT/W/24
Page15
proposed inthecontext ofMEAs wasthattrade measures becontained inagreements representing
multilateral consensus. Chile hadpointed outthatithadalabelbased onstandards based on
MEA-agreed objectives. Sheasked forclarifications astowhether Canada wasconsidering
something similar or,ifnot,whattypeofstandardizing body representing multilateral consensus
would betheonereferred tointheCanadian proposal.
98. ISOwasbasically anon-governmental forum, where decisions were nottaken by
consensus anddoubts remained regarding themultilateral representation ofthisorganization dueto
limited representation ofdeveloping countries 'interests. While ISOstandards were recognized in
theTBTAgreement asinternational standards, technical standards were different from
environmental standards, particularly when based onunincorporated PPMs. Technical standards
could bemore easily multilaterally-agreed since theywere based onquality, durability or
performance ofproducts. Onthecontrary, environmental standards, particularly those based on
unincorporated PPMs, were founded onvalues andjudgements which could varyevenwithin a
country. Therefore, sheconsidered itdifficult toagree onmultilateral environmental standards on
unincorporated PPMs. Rather thanharmonization ormultilateralization ofstandards, she
suggested thattheCommittees focus onthequestion ofequivalence ofstandards andthepossible
development ofguidelines toensure mutual recognition forcountries having eco-labelling systems,
andequivalence ofstandards forcountries nothaving eco-labelling programmes.
99. Therepresentative ofHong Kong, noted that,according toCanada 'sanalysis,
eco-labelling schemes, whether mandatory orvoluntary, fellwithin thescope ofthe
TBTAgreement totheextent theywere based onrequirements related toproduct characteristics or
related PPMs. However, herecognized thatthetrend ofeco-labelling schemes wastouseLCA
withtheresult thateco-labelling schemes would notbefullycovered bytheTBTAgreement due
totheinclusion ofnon-product related PPM requirements. According toWT/CTE/W/10, the
intent ofthenegotiators oftheTBTAgreement wasclearly toexclude unincorporated PPMs from
thecoverage oftheAgreement. From theWTO perspective, theproposal toextend thecoverage
oftheTBTAgreement tounincorporated PPMs could leadtoadifferential treatment forimports
oflikeproducts based onnon-product related criteria. Thesubject needed careful examination.
Herecalled thatpursuant toprinciple 12oftheRioDeclaration "unilateral actions todealwith
environmental challenges outside thejurisdiction oftheimporting country should beavoided" and
stated thatunilateralism andextra-territoriality were incompatible withthemultilateral system.
100. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland recalled hisdelegation 'spreference tousetheterm
voluntary labels rather thaneco-labelling, since voluntary labels were notonlylimited to
environmental issues butcould beusedasameans toachieve other common interests. Inhis
delegation 'sview, theTBTAgreement andtheCode ofGood Practice covered voluntary labels
based onproduct characteristics orproduct-related PPMs through thedefinition of"standard" and
"conformity assessment procedures" inAnnex 1.Standards were documents withwhich
compliance wasvoluntary anddealtparticularly withlabelling requirements. Conformity
assessment procedures included alltypes ofconformity assessment procedures required by
voluntary labelling measures. Therefore, voluntary labels based onproduct characteristics or
product-related PPMs were subject tothetransparency disciplines oftheTBTAgreement andthe
Code ofGood Practice. Voluntary labels should benotified according totherules oftheCode of
Good Practice andshould alsorespect thebasic TBTprinciples ofnational treatment, avoidance of
unnecessary obstacles totrade andpromotion oftheuseofexisting international standards. The
principles ofArticles 5,7and8oftheTBTAgreement should apply toconformity assessment
procedures.
101. With respect tovoluntary labels based onunincorporated PPMs, henoted thatmost
voluntary labelling integrated unincorporated PPMs through LCA. However, thequestion ofthe
coverage ofPPMs bytheTBTAgreement stillrepresented averysensitive issue andhewasG/TBT/W/24
Page16
concerned thatanextensive interpretation ofthenotion ofstandard toinclude, forvoluntary
labels, unincorporated PPMs could create precedents thatcould haveanimpact onthetrading
system. Furthermore, since thesecond sentence ofthedefinitions of"standard" andof"technical
regulation" wasidentical, anyinterpretation ofthedefinition ofstandards could affect the
interpretation ofthedefinition ofaregulation. Theissue needed tobefurther discussed.
102. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthatvoluntary eco-labelling programmes often included
criteria based onunincorporated PPMs. Asaresult, these programmes could havediscriminatory
trade effects bylimiting themarket access offoreign suppliers, inparticular small andmedium
enterprises. Hisdelegation hadcarefully studied ways toaddress them. Hebelieved thatthe
TBTAgreement aswellasother WTO Agreements accommodated onlyproduct and
product-related PPMs. Asindicated bythenegotiating history oftheTBTAgreement, the
definitions inAnnex 3didnotcover technical regulations andstandards based onunincorporated
PPMs.
103. Hebelieved thatevenifvoluntary eco-labelling programmes based onunincorporated
PPMs were developed according tomultilaterally agreed guidelines, suchprogrammes could
hardly becovered bytheCode ofGood Practice oftheTBTAgreement forthree reasons. First,
ifeco-labelling schemes were covered byWTO rules theeffects ofextra-territoriality needed be
addressed. Inparticular, Korea haddifficulties withtheargument stated inCanada 'spaper thatit
wasexcessive tosuggest thateco-labelling programmes should notbeviewed ascompatible with
theWTO simply because oneoftheiressential tools, theLCA, usedsome components thatmight
ormight notfallwithin thescope oftheTBTAgreement. Itwashardly reasonable toattempt to
conclude thatTBTdisciplines were applicable toeco-labelling programmes simply because
unincorporated PPMs were onlyonecomponent ofLCA without giving dueregard to
extraterritoriality. Inhisview, unincorporated PPMs were acritical component inreviewing the
compatibility ofeco-labelling programmes withtheTBTAgreement.
104. Second, eco-labelling programmes were considered tobeunilateral measures fordomestic
environmental policy. Mandatory unilateral measures based onunincorporated PPMs were
apparently outside WTO rules. Thevoluntary nature ofeco-labelling wasprecisely thereason why
efforts were made toexplore thepossibility ofaccommodating thecriteria ofunincorporated PPMs
inWTO rules. However, Canada 'sproposal wasnotclear onthisaspect andseemed tosuggest
thatthemandatory eco-labelling based onunincorporated PPMs alsofellwithin thescope of
WTO rules. Third, Canada 'sproposal toconsider ISO14000 standards asappropriate
multilaterally-agreed guidelines raised questions about theISOasa"recognizable body",
transparency ofISOmeetings, representation oftheinterests ofsmall andmedium enterprises in
developing countries andthetrade impact ofeco-labelling schemes.
105. HesaidthattheWTO rules accommodated eco-labelling programmes inadequately, despite
theirpotential trade effects. Thediscriminatory effects ofeco-labelling programmes arose when
programmes adopted criteria which were more favourable todomestic producers andinappropriate
toforeign producers. Such forms ofdiscrimination could becountered bystrengthening theprior
consultation mechanism andintroducing asophisticated safeguard mechanism toeliminate any
extra-territorial criteria. Another waytoprevent discriminatory eco-labelling programmes wasto
further develop theconcepts ofequivalence andmutual recognition. Asexisting WTO disciplines
lacked those concepts, hesuggested guidelines bedeveloped togrant equivalence ofeachcriterion
andmutual recognition ofeco-labelling programmes, taking intoaccount theexperience ofother
relevant organizations.
106. Therepresentative ofSingapore, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, wished to
reflect ontheprinciples contained inparagraphs (a),(b)and(c)oftheCanadian proposal and
expressed strong reservation onparagraph (d).Heshared Hong Kong'sconcern related totheG/TBT/W/24
Page17
concept ofunincorporated PPMs ineco-labelling schemes andtheviews expressed byMexico and
Korea ontheISO'sappropriateness asanegotiating forum forstandards related tothese schemes.
107. ASEAN opposed anyattempt toinclude anyreference tounincorporated PPMs inthe
discussion ofthisissue. Thus, itdidnotfavour anyinterpretation orextension ofthescope ofthe
TBTAgreement tocover theuseofcriteria based onunincorporated PPMs forthree reasons. The
acceptance oftheconcepts ofPPMs andPPM-based criteria would havetheeffect ofendorsing the
extrajurisdictional application ofdomestic environmental laws, thusencouraging theimposition of
oneMember 'sdomestic environmental norms andstandards onother Members. Inaddition, the
useofcriteria based onunincorporated PPMs would havediscriminatory effects onmarket access
leading toprotectionist abuses ofthese criteria. Finally, ASEAN believed thatunincorporated
PPMs concept violated Articles IandIIIoftheGATT.
108. ASEAN recognized thepotential roleformutual recognition andequivalence inincreasing
transparency andalleviating discriminatory trade effects ofeco-labelling schemes andencouraged
theCTE tocontinue toelaborate ways tocomplement theTBTAgreement withthese principles.
ASEAN alsopointed outthateco-labelling schemes imposed aburden ondeveloping countries and
thatthisshould betaken intoaccount intheirelaboration.
109. Therepresentative ofJapan noted thateco-labelling schemes, ifapplied ina
non-transparent andarbitrary manner, could cause discriminatory effects onimports. Even if
transparent andnotimplemented arbitrarily, these schemes could stillhavetrade impacts ifthey
reflected environmental conditions orecological preferences peculiar toanimporting country and
included PPMs standards thatmight discriminate between imports. Therefore, itwasimperative
thatbodies implementing eco-labelling schemes setthescientifically-based standards and
considered ways topromote mutual recognition ofeco-labelling. Furthermore, fortransparency
purposes itwasimportant thattheimplementation orthemodification ofeco-labelling schemes be
notified exantebygovernments orthataccess totherelevant information beprovided tointerested
countries ororganizations.
110. Referring totheCanadian proposal, hesaidthateveniftheTBTAgreement wasextended
tocover eco-labelling schemes, some issues remained tobeaddressed. First, theproblem of
justifying eco-labelling schemes based onunincorporated PPMs under WTO rules. Second, the
question ofeco-labelling programmes developed byunrecognized non-governmental organizations.
Third, simple labelling requirements prescribing there-collection ofproducts felloutside the
coverage oftheTBTAgreement. Finally, withrespect toeco-labelling programmes implemented
bylocalornon-governmental bodies, itwasnecessary toconsider whether notification on
conformity assessment procedures would beappropriate.
111. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthateco-labelling wasahigh-priority areaforher
Government. Eco-labelling based onLCA would playanimportant roleinfuture efforts to
combat environmental problems. Shewasaware thatahighdegree oftransparency wasrequired
ineco-labelling schemes toavoid them becoming anunwarranted trade restriction. However, she
noted thattheverynature ofeco-labelling wastochange production andconsumption patterns,
and,implicitly, trading patterns towards amore sustainable direction.
112. With respect totheissue ofcoverage ofeco-labelling bytheTBTAgreement, shestated
thattheAgreement covered bothmandatory andvoluntary measures, whether governmental or
non-governmental, andthateco-labelling criteria ofnon-governmental schemes based on
unincorporated PPMs didnotfallunder theTBTAgreement norunder GATT 1994. She
suggested thatthepreparation ofacodeofconduct onvoluntary eco-labelling schemes, onthe
model oftheTBTCode ofGood Practice, would bemore practical thaninterpreting thescope of
theTBTAgreement tocover theuseofstandards based onunincorporated PPMs. ThecodecouldG/TBT/W/24
Page18
include notification procedures, therightforinterested Members tocomment, withaspecial
mention oftheaccommodation offoreign suppliers, andshould takeintoaccount thespecific
needs ofdeveloping countries. However, eveniftransparency ofeco-labelling schemes was
ensured, foreign producers orsuppliers would havetotakeintoaccount theriskofnotgetting the
eco-label.
113. Referring totheCanadian proposal, shesaidthatitwaspremature todecide whether the
ISO14000 standard series could beusedasareference forthedevelopment ofmultilaterally-
agreed guidelines since thecontents ofthese guidelines wasyetknown. However, theconcerns of
many Members oneco-labelling could bemetbyfollowing theTBTtransparency provisions.
Finally, shesuggested thatsome delegations ortheWTO Secretariat draw upthemain elements of
adraftcodeofgood conduct oneco-labelling toassist further discussions ontheissue.
114. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthebasic principles oftheTBTAgreement of
non-discrimination, avoidance ofunnecessary obstacles totrade, promotion oftheuseof
international standards where appropriate, equivalence, mutual recognition, andtransparency
deserved consideration inexamining eco-labelling schemes. Inparticular, thetransparency and
procedural requirements oftheTBTCode ofGood Practice -publication andnotification ofwork
programmes bystandardizing bodies, sixty dayscomment period ondraftstandards, andprompt
publication ofadopted standards -could provide agood basis toaddress some oftheconcerns
raised about eco-labelling schemes andcontribute totheireffectiveness. These requirements could
playauseful roleinmaintaining public confidence intheintegrity ofschemes complying with
them.
115. Hebelieved itwasuseful todevelop asetofmultilateral guidelines ordisciplines on
means toensure thatthelegitimate interests ofexporters inother countries betaken intoaccount
andprovide them withtheopportunity toinfluence thedevelopment ofeco-labelling schemes. In
fact,thecriteria usedinonecountry 'seco-labelling scheme could beinappropriate forthe
environmental anddevelopmental needs ofother countries. Thetransparency andprocedural
requirements andother aspects oftheTBTAgreement could assist inaddressing thisissue. Inthis
respect, heasked forclarification ofthemeaning oftheprinciples ofnon-discrimination and
avoidance ofunnecessary obstacles totrade foreco-labelling schemes involving LCA.
116. Herecalled thattheTBTAgreement, already initspreamble, recognized thatdeveloping
countries might encounter special difficulties intheformulation oftechnical regulations, standards
andconformity assessment andemphasized theneedtoassist them intheirendeavours inthis
regard. Ifeco-labelling schemes were togenuinely make acontribution toglobal sustainable
development, theparticular concerns ofdeveloping countries needed tobefullytaken into
account. Moreover, theTBTAgreement 'sencouragement todevelop andadopt international
standards wasanimportant pointer totheneedforinternational cooperation toensure that
eco-labelling schemes realized theirpotential tocontribute tothepromotion ofsustainable
development. Theactive participation ofrelevant bodies inallcountries wasthusnecessary.
117. Therepresentative ofEgypt, referring toCanada 'spaper, saidherdelegation didnotagree
withanyproposal onthestandardization ofeco-labelling orintroduction ofPPMs intoWTO rules.
Thequestion ofwhether theTBTAgreement already included unincorporated PPMs wasstillopen
andtheCanadian paper itself castdoubts onthisissue.
118. With regard totheproposal onmultilaterally-agreed guidelines andthereference to
ISOguidelines, shequestioned ISO'srepresentation ofinternational consensus anddecision
making. Itwasnottheappropriate body todealwithenvironmental standards. Unlike technical
regulations, environmental standards were notbased oncriteria suchasperformance, durability
andquality. Environmental standards included PPMs andwere exposed topressure groups.G/TBT/W/24
Page19
Therefore, itwould bedifficult toattempt tointernationalize environmental standards based on
PPMs since PPMs were based onvalues which differed from onesociety toanother. Ontheother
hand, shedidnotoppose product-related environmental standards, suchasdisposal andhandling.
Shefavoured disciplines oneco-labelling schemes based onequivalence andmutual recognition,
where eachcountry could setitsownstandards according toitsownvalues asstipulated by
Agenda 21.Aiming attheharmonization orinternationalization ofPPMs onthebasis ofanyset
ofmultilateral guidelines practically contradicted rules unanimously agreed bytheinternational
community.
119. Shebelieved ituseful tostartinvestigating theconcepts ofequivalence andmutual
recognition withtheassistance ofother organizations andperhaps consider anappropriate forum to
negotiate guidelines onequivalency andmutual recognition. Shesaidthattheenhancement of
transparency inthepreparation andapplication ofeco-labelling, through notification andcomment
requirements similar tothose intheTBTAgreement, wasnecessary toprevent eco-labelling
schemes from being unilateral andextraterritorial.
120. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatlabelling requirements placed adisproportionate
burden onthetrade ofdeveloping countries; thushisdelegation attached great importance tothe
issue ofeco-labelling. HesaidthatPPMs were excluded from thecoverage oftheTokyo Round
TBTAgreement. TheUruguay Round TBTAgreement clearly covered product-related PPMs.
However, inhisviewnoprovisions could befound which extended thescope oftheAgreement to
cover unincorporated PPMs. PPM standards could notbejustified under Article XXof
GATT 1994 aslegitimate trade measures. These issues raised thesubject ofextra-territoriality,
questioning thesovereign rightofcountries, asrecognized bytheRioDeclaration, todecide
ontheirenvironmental quality intheirownjurisdictions.
121. Technical standards were completely different from environmental standards. Infact,
while there wasnoroleforPPMs intechnical standards, environmental standards hadtorespond
tosocial pressures. Therefore, while ISOhadaroletoplayinthefieldoftechnical standards, its
roleinthefieldofenvironmental standards remained tobedefined. Since intheTBTAgreement
there were noprovisions extending coverage tounincorporated PPMs, theonlypresumption
should bethatthese were notincluded intheAgreement. However, eveniftheywere included,
thepurpose theywould serve wasnotclear. Itwould havetobeclearly specified howthe
objective ofenvironmental protection wasserved asnorelevant information would beforthcoming
toconsumers tomake realenvironmental choices. Further, suchPPMs would lockproducers into
choices oftechnology forspecified periods oftimehindering technological innovation and
competitiveness.
122. With respect totheCanadian proposal toinclude intheTBTAgreement only
unincorporated PPMs based onmultilaterally agreed guidelines, there were nomultilateral
institutions developing universally-agreed environmental standards. ISOwasnotyettheright
forum. However, evenifMembers agreed toanysuchinternational organization there wasno
roleforharmonization since environmental standards were based onvalues which differed between
countries, andifonlyguidelines were tobeformulated theywould besogeneral astohavelittle
value.
123. Hebelieved thatitwasnotenough toseekequivalency ofstandards onacase-by-case
approach, subject tomutual recognition. Countries having theirowneco-labelling programmes
would havetosetstandards based ontheirownenvironmental values andpriorities anditwould
beunfair toexpect other standards toconform tothese. Finally, hestressed theneedforgreater
transparency ofeco-labelling schemes onthebasis ofexisting TBTprovisions of
non-discrimination andavoidance ofunnecessary obstacles totrade. Hereiterated thatwhile
labelling regulations were mandatory, itwould bedifficult toimpose mandatory complianceG/TBT/W/24
Page20
provisions onstandards since compliance withlabelling standards wasvoluntary under the
TBTAgreement.
124. Therepresentative ofCanada noted thatalarge number ofdelegations hadagreed with
principles (a),(b)and(c)oftheCanadian proposal which meant thattheyagreed thateco-labelling
programmes fellunder thebasic disciplines oftheTBTAgreement. However, many ofthem had
raised concerns overproposal (d)which related tonon-product related PPMs withfearofthe
possible introduction ofunincorporated PPMs intotheWTO. Shesaidthatthereactions provoked
byprinciple (d)reflected thediscussions inherowncountry. Shesaidthatwhile most hadcome
totheconclusion thateco-labelling programmes indeed were covered under theTBTAgreement,
theproblem onhowtoaddress thefactthatmost ofthese programmes were based onlife-cycle
approaches andthatsome product standards would include criteria based onunincorporated PPMs
stillremained.
125. Canada wanted tomaintain thecredibility andhighstandards ofitseco-labelling
programme andatthesame timeprotect itsexports against theconflicting requirements,
uncertainties andpossible biases ofeco-labelling programmes developed domestically withcriteria
answering tolocalconditions andlocalvalues. ShesaidthatCanada 'sproposal tointerpret the
scope oftheTBTAgreement tocover theuseofunincorporated PPMs involuntary eco-labelling
programmes, provided thatthese standards adhered tomultilaterally-agreed guidelines, seemed to
answer most oftheconcerns expressed. Itwascircumscribed tovoluntary programmes
(orstandards) andtheCode ofGood Practice. Itprovided eco-labelling programmes withthe
flexibility theyneeded tofulfil theirobjectives andatthesame time, gaveexporters some
assurance andpossible recourse against unilaterally developed eco-labelling PPM measures.
126. Sheunderstood theconcerns expressed bymany delegations regarding theconcept of
"multilaterally-agreed guidelines" because currently there were nosuchguidelines. Sherecalled
thatintheCanadian paper, thedraftenvironmental guidelines ISO14000 which would soonbe
available wasreferred toasanexample. However, theexample hadraised concerns, perhaps due
tothelackofinformation onmanagement standards suchasISO9000 andISO14000. She
believed thatitwould beuseful tohaveapresentation onthecurrent developments ofthe
ISO14000 standard series atafuture jointinformal meeting oftheTBTCommittee andtheCTE.
127. Shereiterated thatmultilaterally-agreed guidelines, whether developed bytheISO,UNEP,
UNCTAD orGEN, would notsetspecific standards orbaseline withwhich every eco-labelling
scheme would havetocomply. However, theywould provide aframework toensure thatcertain
basic principles likenon-discrimination, national treatment, transparency, consultation, and
reliance onscientific andtechnical information were adhered towhen eco-labelling criteria or
standards were developed. ShesaidthatitwasnottheroleofWTO Members todevelop such
guidelines, butthetaskofpractitioners incollaboration withtrade policy experts. Work on
eco-labelling wascurrently pursued inmany fora. Shehopethatthecurrent discussions inthe
CTE andtheTBTCommittee would helpfocus experts 'attention ontheurgent needforsuch
eco-labelling guidelines andthatthebasic GATT/TBT principles would berespected.
128. Shesaidthatherdelegation would further itsproposal atfuture sessions oftheCTE and
theTBTCommittee, taking intoaccount thecomments, concerns andqueries raised byother
delegations. Given theconsensus thathaddeveloped ontheimportance oftransparency of
eco-labelling programmes, Canada wasexploring thepossibility ofnotifying officially thework
planofCanada 'sEnvironmental Choice when itwould becompleted around May1996. Finally,
sherequested document G/TBT/W/21-WT/CTE/W/21 containing Canada 'ssubmission tobe
derestricted.G/TBT/W/24
Page21
129. Therepresentative ofBrazil welcomed Canada 'sintention tonotify itsenvironmental
programme. Hesupported theproposal toholdfurther jointCTE/CTBT meetings toallow
presentation ofother eco-labelling programmes andfurther discuss theCanadian proposal.
130. Therepresentative ofIndia reiterated thattechnical standards under theTBTAgreement
were different from environmental standards. Hequestioned about theroleofISOindeveloping
international environmental standards.
131. Therepresentative oftheUnited States reiterated thatitwasherdelegation 'sviewthat
eco-labelling wasclearly covered under theprovisions oftheTBTAgreement asdefined inthe
second sentence ofthedefinition ofstandard contained inannex onetotheAgreement andthat
disciplines under theTBTAgreement could beapplied toeco-labelling programmes, suchasthe
principles ofnon-discrimination andtransparency. However, sherecognized thatnoconsensus on
theinterpretation hadbeenreached during thedebate. Shesaidthattheoriginal proposals
regarding theinclusion ofPPMs intheAgreement andthereports ofthemeetings ofthe
Tokyo Round TBTCommittee during theUruguay Round negotiation showed thattheintention of
negotiators hadbeentoinclude unincorporated PPMs intheAgreement.
132. With respect tosome delegations 'sopinions onISOstandards, shesaidthather
government wasverysupportive ofISOactivities. TheAmerican National Standards Institute
(ANSI), aprivate body, wastheUnited States 'snational body participating inISOactivities.
ANSI 'smembership comprised 1,300 national andinternational companies, 40federal andlocal
government agencies, 25institutions and260professional technical, trade, labour andconsumers
organizations. Shesaidthathergovernment wasmaking efforts toensure thattheUSdelegations
participating inactivities oftheISOrepresented broad range ofinterests. Sheencouraged other
Members todothesame.
133. Shesaidthatitwasnecessary tobeverycareful indrawing conclusions from the
discussions ontheissue ofeco-labelling since theywould haveanimpact ontheprinciples and
functioning oftheTBTAgreement, suchasdisciplines provided forISO9000 andISO14000
management standards which were notrelated tothefinalcharacteristics ofproducts. She
believed thatthiswasanissue tobeconsidered infuture discussions intheTBTCommittee and
theCTE.
134. Therepresentative ofMorocco saidthatCanada 'spaper represented asound basis forthe
work oftheTBTCommittee andtheCTE. Hestressed theneedforclose co-operation with
other international standardizing bodies when dealing withtheissue ofeco-labelling. The
TBTAgreement encouraged Members toparticipate inwork ofinternational standardizing bodies
andArticle 11.6stated that"Members which aremembers orparticipants ofinternational or
regional systems forconformity assessment shall, ifrequested, advise other Members, especially
thedeveloping country Members, andshallgrant them technical assistance onmutually agreed
terms andconditions regarding theestablishment oftheinstitutions andlegalframework which
would enable them tofulfil theobligations ofmembership orparticipation insuchsystems".
135. Hewelcomed ISOandUNCTAD participation asobservers intheCommittee andsaid
theywere carrying outsignificant work inthefieldofeco-labelling. Hedrew attention tothe
resolution onEnvironmentally Sustainable Industrial Development, adopted bytheGeneral
Conference ofUNIDO inDecember 1995 andtoitsemphasis oncloser interaction and
cooperation between UNIDO andWTO intheareaofeco-labelling. Hesaidthattheresolution
reflected theconcerns ofdeveloping countries oneco-labelling schemes thattheycould impose
additional economic burden ondeveloping countries thusdiminishing theircompetitiveness and
comparative advantage. Cooperation withUNIDO would provide technical support for
standardizing bodies indeveloping countries andfacilitate them tocomply withISOstandards. HeG/TBT/W/24
Page22
believed thatanadhocobserver participation ofUNIDO inthework oftheTBTCommittee and
theCTE would beuseful. Herequested theSecretariat toprepare forthenextCommittee meeting
aninformative document onUNIDO 'scontribution toeco-labelling.
136. TheChairperson saidthattheSecretariat would consider thepreparation ofaninformative
paper onUNIDO 'scontribution toeco-labelling asrequested bythedelegation ofMorocco. The
Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed tocontinue discussions ontheissue of
eco-labelling injointinformal meetings oftheTBTCommittee andtheCTE andtoderestrict
document G/TBT/W/21- WT/CTE/W/21 (Communication from Canada onEco-labelling) andthat
thedocument would bepublished intheTrade andEnvironment Bulletin .
K. ISO9000 AND ISO14000
137. TheChairperson drew attention todocument G/TBT/W/20 containing acommunication
from theISOproviding further information clarifying questions raised byMembers onISO9000
andISO14000 standards attheprevious meeting.
L. OTHER BUSINESS
138. TheCommittee agreed toholditsnextmeeting on25June1996.