Members also conducted China’s “transitional review”, required annually for the first eight years under China’s membership agreement, and once more after about 10 years. And they looked ahead to a workshop on “Good Regulatory Practice” in March 2008.

back to top

Specific trade concerns 

EU’s REACH: The longest discussion continued to be on the EU’s Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), covering the production and use of chemical substances, which took effect on 1 June 2007 after seven years of preparation and final approval in December 2006. It is being phased in over 11 years. REACH gives greater responsibility to industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances (see box, and EU Commission website.

Argentina joined a lengthening list of countries raising the issue. Among its concerns are: uncertainty about how the regulation works; its complexity and use of ambiguous terms; the possibility that the regulation will not be applied uniformly in all EU member states; the numerous bureaucratic steps required; the costs that have to be borne by exporters, producers and users even if they are not in the EU because of the onus shifted to industry; the requirement that only registered products can be sold. In particular, the regulation causes problems for small and medium-sized industries, Argentina said.

Brazil, the US, Rep. of Korea, Australia, Japan, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Chile, China, Mexico and Thailand agreed, some of them saying the EU has not provided enough information. Some of them also reported that the issue had been discussed in Brussels when some members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group met the EU.

The EU replied that the regulation has already been modified because of comments received during consultation periods. Although some information has not been notified to the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Committee, it is available on the Internet, the EU said. It also denied that the regulation discriminates against foreign companies because the same conditions apply to all, including small and medium-sized European companies, and it assured WTO members that the EU Commission is responsible for ensuring the regulation is applied uniformly all over the EU.

Chemicals were also the subject of concerns raised about regulations on toxic substances:

• the EU’s draft regulation on dangerous chemical substances (notified in document G/TBT/N/EEC/151, in particular “borates” (salts or other compounds known as esters containing boron and made from boric acids, used for a range of purposes such as fertilizer or wood treatment), and nickel carbonates(raised by Turkey with the US, Malaysia, Canada, Australia, China, Chile, Brazil, Japan and Argentina)
  

• Sweden’s ban (raised by Israel, with Jordan and Japan and the US, document G/TBT/N/SWE/59)and Norway’s proposed ban (the same four, raised by Japan, G/TBT/N/NOR/6, Add.1 and Corr.1) on decabromodiphenyl ether, a brominated flame retardant used in fabric and plastics to make furniture, construction materials, vehicles, cables and other products.

Questioning countries argued that the risks have not been demonstrated scientifically and that the measures (or proposed measures) would hamper trade unnecessarily.

Other concerns raised include:

New concerns

• Argentina’s regulations for pharmaceuticals, involving: classification of countries, application of conformity assessment procedures, classification and application of tariffs or fees for undertaking verification visits to plants located in the countries of origin — raised by Colombia (document G/TBT/W/280)
  

• Moldova’s regulation on bottled non-alcoholic beverages — raised by the EU

• Norway’s proposed regulation on hazardous substances in consumer products (G/TBT/N/NOR/17) — raised by the US, with Israel, Japan and Jordan

• US advertising and labelling regulations for tobacco and alcohol G/TBT/N/USA/290 and Add.1 — raised by Argentina

• Chinese Taipei’s regulations on food additives — raised by the EU

Continuing concerns
(See minutes of previous meetings, e.g. G/TBT/M/42)

• Belgium’s and the Netherlands’ ban on seal products (G/TBT/N/BEL/39 and G/TBT/N/NLD/68; dispute DS369)— raised by Norway
• Rep. of Korea’s restrictions on edible fish heads — raised by New Zealand, with Norway and the EU
• US regulation on country of origin labelling (COOL) (G/TBT/N/USA/25, G/TBT/N/USA/83 and Corr.1, <G/TBT/N/USA/281) — raised by New Zealand, with Canada
• Canada’s compositional requirements for cheese (G/TBT/N/CAN/203) — raised by New Zealand, with the US, Australia and the EU
• Turkey’s strip stamp regime — raised by the US
• New Zealand’s ban on trout for conservation — raised by Canada
• Israel’s regulation on infant formula milk — raised by the US
• Thailand’s labelling for snack foods (G/TBT/N/THA/215 and Add.1) — raised by the US, with Australia, Canada, the EU
• Brazil not notifying regulations on medical devices — raised by the US, with the EU and Switzerland
• India’s regulations on tyres (G/TBT/N/IND/20) — raised by the EU, with the US
• India’s regulations on drugs and cosmetics — raised by the US
• Brazil’s regulations on batteries — Brazil volunteered information to the EU

As usual, the concerns were about alleged lack of scientific evidence or other justifications to back up the measures (e.g. on the harm caused by substances or the need for conservation), measures that are too burdensome because they would not meet the objectives even if the objectives are accepted (e.g. nutritional labelling), or lack of information.

In one case, the EU declined to reply because the case (on seals) is now a WTO dispute, preferring to leave the discussion to the dispute itself.

  

back to top

China’s transitional review 

Questions for this year’s transitional review came from Japan (G/TBT/W/278), the US (G/TBT/W/279) and EU (G/TBT/W/281). They covered a wide range of issues, one common to all of them being the issue of compulsory versus recommended standards. Although China insisted that recommended standards are not compulsory, all three questioners said their private sectors were reporting that apparently “recommended” standards were being treated as compulsory in practice. They asked China to clear up the confusion. See also China’s submission, document G/TBT/W/282.

  

back to top

Transparency 

Notifications and exchanges of information and experience lie at the heart of the committee’s work. They allow governments to know what other governments are doing or planning and to discuss them, for example as specific trade concerns. Two events were organized immediately before this committee meeting, dealing with some aspects of transparency.

Procedures for Information Exchange

The fifth special meeting on this subject was held on 7–8 November, with a number of officials from capitals funded by the WTO so that they could attend. The meeting allowed officials responsible for exchanging information under the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement to discuss relevant issues at a technical level and to review how well notification is functioning and how enquiry points (officials assigned to answer questions on their government’s technical barriers to trade) are operating.

Reporting to the committee afterwards, chairperson Raminder Sidhu said the two days of discussion showed that members have made significant advances in implementing the TBT Agreement’s provisions, but this could still be made more efficient. One proposal was for the committee to identify “best practices” for enquiry points, he said. Participants also said it is important for agencies within a government to cooperate, for example agencies dealing with standards and those handling regulations, he reported.

“In fact, the workshop showed that transparency is very much a fundamental pillar [for] good regulatory practice — a theme that the committee will revert to in March next year,” he said.

Statements on implementing the agreement

The TBT Agreement (Article 15.2) requires governments to inform their fellow-members about how they are implementing the agreement. Since the agreement (and the WTO) came into being in 1995, 115 members have submitted at least one statement for the purpose, six of them since the last meeting in July, the chairperson reported.

The day before the meeting, a workshop was organized to help members, in particular the 36 that have not made statements so far. The Secretariat reported that the workshop was well attended and looked at different approaches and experiences, including valuable presentations from developing countries such as Niger, Paraguay and Botswana, which have submitted statements.

Again, one of the messages was the need for cooperation among various agencies and stakeholders within a country, the Secretariat said. This also helps to raise awareness about technical-barriers-to-trade issues, the committee was told.

Information on both of these will soon be available on the TBT gateway page.

Chairperson: Mr Raminder Sidhu of India

Next meetings  back to top

20 March 2008 (18-19 March: Workshop on Good Regulatory Practice)