RESTRICTED

G/TBT/M/78

23 September 2019

(19-6111) Page: 1/54

Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 20-21 JUNE 2019

CHAIRMAN: MR SUNG HWA JANG

Note by the Secretariat1

1 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................ 1

2 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON ................................................................................ 1

3 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT ................................. 1

3.1 Statements from Members under Article 15.2 ................................................................. 1

3.2 Specific Trade Concerns ............................................................................................... 2

3.3 Exchange of Experiences ............................................................................................ 52

3.4 Follow-up on Committee Decisions and Recommendations .............................................. 52

3.5 Other recommendations from the 8th Triennial Review ................................................... 52

4 TECHNICAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 52

5 UPDATING BY OBSERVERS ........................................................................................ 53

5.1 Updates from Observers ............................................................................................. 53

5.2 Pending requests ....................................................................................................... 53

6 OTHER BUSINESS ...................................................................................................... 54

7 DATE OF NEXT MEETING ........................................................................................... 54

1 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/TBT/14.

2 ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON

The TBT Committee elected Mr. SUNG HWA JANG (Republic of Korea) as Chairman in 2019.

3 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT

3.1 Statements from Members under Article 15.2

The Chairman reminded the Committee of Members' notification obligation under Article 15.2 of the TBT Agreement and further informed the Committee that the latest list of statements on implementation submitted under this provision was contained in an annex to the Annual Review of the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/42), issued on 25 February 2019.

1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice

to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.

G/TBT/M/78

- 2 -

Information on the list of statements is available on the TBT Information Management System (TBT IMS).

3.2 Specific Trade Concerns

3.2.1 New concerns

China - Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration and Filing (IMS ID 5842)

The representative of Japan requested further consideration of two points his delegation had made in comments submitted on China's TBT notification of 22 February 2019, concerning proposed amendments to "Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration and Filing". Regarding Testing Laboratories: Article 7 in the draft provided that the testing laboratory should have an independent

corporate status and obtain China Inspection Body and Laboratory Mandatory Approval (CMA) prior to conducting registration testing on cosmetic products. Furthermore, under China's regulation, only

laboratories in China could obtain CMA, therefore Article 7 would reject test results obtained by in-house and foreign laboratories. Japan requested a more flexible framework in order that test results obtained by in-house or foreign laboratories through internationally recognized practices such as ISO be accepted.

Concerning the Animal Testing Requirement: in Appendix 1, animal testing was required for imported non-special use products, however domestic non-special use products did not require such testing. His delegation considered that this created discriminatory treatment without a safety

justification, forcing importers to engage in animal testing on products. It was Japan's understanding that the "Regulation for Notification of Non-special Cosmetics", notified by China on 6 June 2019, exempted imported non-special use products from animal testing under specific conditions. Japan approved of this text and repeated its request that China accord equal treatment to imported products regarding animal testing. Japan further requested that China take into account Members'

comments on the notification and that the regulation be no more trade restrictive than necessary.

The representative of the Republic of Korea appreciated the opportunity to comment on the

draft Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration and Filing (G/TBT/N/CHN/1311) of 2 February 2019. Concerns did remain. Firstly, Korea believed that Article 14 of the draft regulation placed a restriction on the remaining shelf life of the sample submitted for inspection and that this would result in an unnecessary barrier to trade; China was therefore requested to remove this requirement. The provision also allowed submission of prototypes as samples only for domestic special use cosmetics, a discriminatory treatment according to the WTO rules. Korea therefore asked

China to apply this rule both for domestic and imported special use cosmetics.

Second, Annex 1 of the proposed regulation established different items for inspection for domestic and imported non-special use cosmetics. Her delegation therefore requested China to inspect imported non-special use cosmetics equally to domestic ones to prevent the establishment

of a discriminatory measure. Third, China was asked to provide a sufficient transition period to allow time for industry to prepare for the new regulation. Lastly, Korea requested China to explain the current state of play including the date of entry into force of the draft and to provide a response to

its comments on the regulation.

The representative of the United States expressed support for the concerns raised by Japan and Korea and noted her own delegation's concerns with the measure as raised under previously-raised STC 6 below.3

The representative of China explained that the purpose of the regulation was to stipulate the inspection works in cosmetics registration and filing, in order to guarantee the openness, fairness, justice and soundness of those works. As the regulation was currently still under drafting, Members'

2 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 584 (under dates raised and references). 3 China - Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation (Draft) G/TBT/N/CHN/1310,

G/TBT/N/CHN/1311

G/TBT/M/78

- 3 -

comments were welcomed. As concerns were being raised in the TBT Committee for the first time, her delegation would study Members' concerns and revert later.

European Union - Explanatory memorandum of unmanned aircraft systems and third-country operators of unmanned aircraft (IMS ID 5854)

The representative of China raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/646.

The representative of the European Union thanked China for its comments on the draft Commission Delegated Regulation5 on unmanned aircraft systems, and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems, for which the EU had consulted all the relevant stakeholders. As already mentioned in its reply to China's comments, she explained that the EU had adapted the wording of its requirement on the light identification device to enable industry to develop appropriate

solutions without banning the use of red, green and white lights.6 The EU had also adapted the

definition of the "follow-me mode" to one where the unmanned aircraft (UA) followed only the pilot and not any other person or device, as suggested by China.

On the range limitation imposed to unmanned aircraft (UA) when the "follow-me" mode was on, the EU considered, however, that the range limitation must be maintained at 50 m for safety reasons until reliable autonomous UA were available. Indeed, she added, the UA should stay in close vicinity of the remote pilot in order to allow him to stay aware of the flight environment of his UA and to be able to quickly intervene and regain control of his UA in case of necessity. The requirement

on the maximum attainable range from the remote pilot station for class C0 unmanned aircraft had been introduced to address privacy risks potentially caused by these unmanned aircrafts. This product requirement had been removed according to China's suggestion and replaced by the obligation7 for the operator to register himself when operating an unmanned aircraft of less than 250 gr equipped with a sensor able to capture personal data, unless this unmanned aircraft was a toy in the meaning of Directive 2009/48/EC on the safety of toys. In addition, following China's

suggestion, the EU had established a three-year transition period in the Commission Implementing

Regulation8 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircrafts complementing the Commission Delegated Regulation and that had been published at the same time as the notified regulation.

India - Notification of 2018 draft cosmetic rules, amending provisions of the India Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1940 (IMS ID 5869)

The representative of the United States thanked India for the bilateral meeting and

understood that there would soon be a notification on the measure. She said that cosmetics was an area of rapid bilateral growth in US-India trade, increasing by 9% annually, with India exporting over $288 million in 2018. US cosmetics exports to India had reached $71 million in 2018, with an average annual growth rate of 11% over the previous three years. Given this vibrant trade, her delegation was disappointed that following India's response to the US TBT enquiry point request in December 2018, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had not notified India's new draft

Cosmetics Rules to the TBT Committee.

Despite the lack of a notification, the US Government (in December 2018) and US industry (in January 2019) had separately submitted questions and comments to India's enquiry point and to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to which there had been no substantive responses. Would India notify this draft measure to the TBT Committee and/or share an update with the US delegation as to its plans for the measure? At the March 2019 TBT Committee meeting, India's representative had noted that he would follow up with India's enquiry point and Ministry of Health

4 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 585 (under dates raised and references). 5 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems

and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems 6 CEN is currently developing a European harmonised standard based on the use of the 3 classical

aeronautics colours (green, red and white). 7 Article 14.5 (a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947. 8 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for

the operation of unmanned aircraft 9 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 586 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 4 -

and Family Welfare to ask why the measure had not been notified to the WTO. Additionally, and consistent with the TBT Agreement, would India provide 60 to 90 days for interested parties to submit written comments and consider those comments when preparing the final rules?

In reviewing the draft rules, the US was concerned that India was continuing its prior practice of requiring imported products to submit a product specification and testing protocol, requiring products to be tested in India, in line with local standards developed by the Bureau of Indian

Standards (BIS). The US was concerned that this practice would hinder the growth of its bilateral trade, since it did not provide for conformity assessment in product testing, nor reference ISO or other international standards in the cosmetics sector, which were quite developed. She encouraged India to consider the request to notify the draft Rules and to consider the comments submitted directly to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by the Personal Care Products Council.

The representative of the European Union supported the comments expressed by the US, in

particular the hope that India would soon notify the measure to the TBT Committee.

The representative of India said that the draft Cosmetics rules 2018 had been submitted to the WTO Secretariat on 19 June 2019 for notification, with a 60-day comment period. He informed the US that concerning queries to the enquiry point, they had been forwarded for appropriate action.

India - Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2019 (IMS ID 58710)

The representative of the United States asked India to clarify how the 2019 draft Quality Control Order (QCO) for toys related to "Amendment in Policy conditions No. 2 to Chapter 95 of ITC,

2017-Schedule on Import Policy" notified to the WTO as G/TBT/N/IND/68. She said that the US had been the seventh largest exporter of toys to India in 2017, primarily specialty toys from small and medium-sized manufacturers. The US was also home to two of the world's largest toy companies, of which the 2016 value of the Indian toy market was estimated at $75-100 million. As such, her delegation viewed the amendment's potential detrimental effect on trade to be deeply concerning.

Did India have a planned timeline for notification of the draft Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2019 to the WTO Secretariat? Did India have a tentative timeline for the implementation of the draft Toys

(Quality Control) Order, 2019?

She noted her delegation's continued serious concerns with the burdensome nature of India's requirements for imported toys, underlining that prior to regulatory changes, India employed what many considered the "gold standard" of toy regulatory regimes – toy manufacturers could test to either the ASTM, ISO, or EN toy safety standards in the country of manufacture by a lab accredited under the ILAC system. India had not offered a credible explanation for departing from this prior

practice. For example, India had noted that the 2017 measure (Amendment in Policy conditions No. 2 to Chapter 95 of ITC (HS), 2017-Schedule- 1 (Import Policy)) was put into place immediately due to issues concerning safety of children but had not provided important information regarding the evaluation of specific toy hazards despite numerous requests.

The representative of the European Union expressed support for the US in relation to the concerns being raised and requested India to notify the proposed measure to the TBT Committee.

The representative of Canada expressed concern about the recent draft decree issued by India

regarding quality control for toys. Without wishing to question the right of India or any other Member to implement measures to ensure the safety of children, his delegation considered that the draft Order included multiple levels of accreditation, tests, registration fees and approvals necessary for a single product to be sold in the Indian market. Moreover, after a long approval process, companies would have no certainty that they would ultimately be allowed to sell their product on the market. Canada encouraged India to notify the measure to the TBT Committee as soon as possible and to provide Members with a reasonable period of time to provide comments.

The representative of India informed the Committee that the matter was still under stakeholder consideration process at domestic level and that on issuance, the draft QCO 2019 would be notified to the WTO.

10 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 587 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 5 -

Republic of Korea - Package Recycle Classification Regulation (IMS ID 58811)

The representative of the United States expressed appreciation for Korea's objective to promote recycling and reduce unnecessary waste. However, she was disappointed that Korea had not responded to their requests to notify the draft regulation in February nor April of 2019. She urged Korea to do so and allow stakeholder comments with a sufficient notice and period. She was concerned that Korea's classification regulation may not succeed if Korea did not consider current

efforts to promote recycling in other countries, so as to encourage scale in the classification, labelling, and use of recyclable materials. The US wanted to ensure that this was not a Korea-unique packaging requirement that would disrupt trade. She said, for example, that the proposed classification did not reference relevant international standards for classifying resins such as ASTM D7611/D7611M-18 Standard for Resin/Plastic Coding. Her delegation asked if Korea had considered the potential costs and benefits of the measure. She noted that while the measure may encourage

the use of materials that were easier to recycle, these materials may not have a net environmental

benefit if substantial natural resources were required for production. She asked Korea to consider partnerships with consumer product and waste recycling companies to identify best practices. She also asked about the expected timeline for implementation and what charges Korea would levy for non-compliance, because US industry was concerned that the scale of the potential changes in packaging may result in withdrawal of affected products from the Korean market.

The representative of Canada acknowledged Korea's efforts to protect the environment,

particularly with respect to the management of waste and recyclables. However, he echoed the comments made by the US. He noted that this measure could affect a wide range of products, from plastics to consumer products. He was concerned that Korea had not notified the measure nor offered opportunity for stakeholder comments, as this may create uncertainty for exporters and unduly disrupt trade. Canada believed that there were international standards on which Korea could build on to achieve the same policy objective as provided for in the TBT Agreement, and he welcomed any clarifications from Korea.

The representative of the Republic of Korea responded that a draft of "Package Recycle Classification Regulation" had been finalized on 17 April 2019, but this was only for establishing the classification criteria of packaging materials and had no mandatory requirement. There were therefore no criteria for prohibition of sales for the products that did not meet this regulation. However, Article 9-2 of the "Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources", which contained regulations on quality and structure of packaging materials for a grade evaluation and

mandatory requirement to indicate the results, would be implemented in December 2019. The operational plan for the draft sub-regulations was still in process, as Korea was still consulting with experts. Hence, after confirmation of the draft sub-regulations, Korea would make an official WTO/TBT notification and provide adequate opportunity for stakeholder comments. His delegation would also provide a sufficient transitional period before enforcement. Korea would respond to the requests made by relevant ministries and keep consultations on this issue in a transparent manner.

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Added Sugar Upper Limit in Some Food Products (IMS

ID 58912)

The representative of the United States expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak with Saudi Arabia on her delegation's very strong concerns regarding the Saudi Food and Drug Authority's (SFDA) draft regulation that all food and beverage products could not exceed maximum added sugar limits established by SFDA (G/TBT/N/SAU/1108 and Add.1). The US also appreciated that since initial notification, Saudi Arabia had informed Members that implementation would be suspended until further notice. Her delegation was concerned that if implemented, the measure

would disrupt the export of a wide range of popular food and beverage products to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, making most forms of popular carbonated beverages, ice cream, jams and preserves, confectionary, chocolate candy, energy drinks, and many juices unavailable to consumers there, as many of these products required a certain level of added sugar as a preservative or stabilizer. She warned that as in many cases there was no viable alternative, the product would not be able to enter Saudi Arabia through authorized channels. Moreover, she said, the sudden removal of these products

from the market would negatively affect Saudi producers, retailers, importers, and consumers and

11 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 588 (under dates raised and references). 12 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 589 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 6 -

if implemented, the regulations would cause several companies to shut their Saudi Arabian food production operations and lay off their employees.

Whilst appreciating Saudi Arabia's desire to address obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes, as part of its Healthy Food Strategy, the US nevertheless questioned the sufficiency of the scientific evidence used as justification for the regulation, the limits prescribed, the specific objectives of the regulation, and the process by which this draft would meet those

objectives. The US was also concerned about how the draft regulation aligned with Saudi Arabia's proposed new regulations on Front of Package Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) and yet to be notified regulations on maximum limits on salt. Her delegation asked Saudi Arabia to notify these regulations to the WTO and added that they were unclear and did not reflect consultation with private-sector stakeholders, noting the cumulative effect of increasing uncertainty and unpredictability for a range of US and multinational companies. Whilst appreciating the suspension of implementation of the

draft regulation, the US requested Saudi Arabia to work with stakeholders and trading partners to

ensure that measures took into account scientific and technical information for meeting specific health objectives while minimizing potential negative economic impacts. She flagged that her government would be providing technical comments in response to the April 2019 notifications of the regulation to the TBT and SPS Committees, a process industry groups would be actively involved in, and urged Saudi Arabia to take those comments into account.

The representative of Switzerland pointed to the ample scientific evidence demonstrating the

effects on human health of too much sugar over a prolonged period and therefore supported Saudi Arabia's objective in principle. He drew attention to Switzerland's "Nutrition Strategy 2017-2024" which sought to improve public health awareness through a variety of measures, including through the engagement of foodstuff producers and suppliers, a better education, and the promotion of a varied and balanced diet with less sugar. His delegation also welcomed initiatives to develop relevant international standards with the view to reducing sugar content in day-to-day diets, in particular for added sugar. Switzerland was concerned, however, with the lack of scientific evidence to support

the draft regulation, for example, concerning the quantity of added sugar in food products. Saudi

Arabia was asked to provide more information on the scientific basis of the measure.

Also of concern were the economic implications if the regulation was implemented. It was unclear to Switzerland to what extent food producers could adjust the recipes and production lines to meet the upper sugar limits for foodstuffs and asked whether Saudi Arabia had received feedback from private sector stakeholders on this particular aspect. He then asked if Saudi Arabia had

considered other less trade-restrictive measures to reach its policy objective, questioning why private sector stakeholders had not been more widely engaged in the consultation process. Bearing in mind the important technical knowhow of producers and suppliers of foodstuff, which could help design effective regulations, Saudi Arabia was encouraged to engage with private sector stakeholders to ensure a transparent process.

The representative of the European Union raised some of the most important points included in written comments on the measure that would be sent to Saudi Arabia, in particular the expected

compliance difficulties due to the lack of an analytical method to distinguish naturally present and

added sugar. The EU also noted that Foods for Special Medical Purposes and Infant formula and Follow-up formula should be excluded from the scope of the draft. In addition, her delegation enquired whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had considered alternative, less trade-restrictive policies to reduce the sugar content in foods placed on the national market, such as economic measures facilitating healthier food choices and restricting consumption of added sugar or control of food advertising and marketing. Finally, the EU considered that the limits currently proposed may

be technically challenging, particularly within the short timeframe proposed. Consequently, some key product categories currently exported from the EU to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to access the market on 1 January 2020 and in this context, the EU invited Saudi Arabia to consider a transition period of at least three years for the notified provisions.

The representative of the Russian Federation expressed support for public health concerns that may be caused by unhealthy diet but believed that such concerns could be addressed in a less

trade-restrictive manner. His delegation considered that the upper limit for added sugar required in the draft of the technical regulation of Saudi Arabia was more trade restrictive than necessary.

Specifically, sugar content requirements set out in the document were not technologically achievable with regard to confectionery, for instance for chocolate and candies, among others. These requirements would therefore constitute a de facto ban, severely disrupting international trade in

G/TBT/M/78

- 7 -

confectionary. It was noted that the document developed by the WHO, referred to by Saudi Arabia, only set recommendations for daily sugar consumption and did not lay down any requirements for sugar content in food products. Saudi Arabia was therefore requested to specify the scientific basis for such requirements in general and more specifically the basis for sugar content requirements in particular food products. Without such scientific data, he said, the measure could not be considered as justifiable, and based on international standards, practices and recommendations, his delegation

was inclined to consider it as arbitrary. The Russian Federation remained open for consultations with the delegation of Saudi Arabia to discuss ways to revise the draft measure.

The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia clarified that the technical regulation on the upper limit for added sugar in some food products would be reviewed by Saudi Arabia and would not come into force until further notice. He indicated his delegation's willingness to engage bilaterally with any interested delegations.

Uruguay - Analysis of Imported Products - Resolution of the Board of the National Grape-Growing and Wine Production Institute (INAVI) of 14 February 2019. Resolution of the Board of INAVI postponing implementation until 1 May 2019) - exogenous water in wine G/TBT/N/URY/27/Rev.1 (IMS ID 59013)

The representatives of the United States, Chile and South Africa raised concerns with the measure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/668, G/TBT/W/647 and G/TBT/W/643, respectively.

The representative of Australia expressed support for the concerns of other Members regarding Uruguay's implementation of new certification requirements for exogenous water in wine. He emphasized the importance of compliance with WTO obligations, in particular the requirements that measures be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner and in a way that was no more trade restrictive than necessary. He explained that in Australia, wine producers were permitted under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to add water to dilute high sugar musts to aid in

fermentation. The addition of water was done in minimal circumstances, for technical necessity, in

small volumes to aid fermentation during periods of difficult seasonal conditions. Australia asked Uruguay to clarify the term 'exogenous water' and whether the use of water, permitted in Australia under the Food Standards Code, would be considered 'exogenous water'. Noting that the objective of the new measure was the 'prevention of deceptive practices and consumer protection', his delegation sought clarification on how the proposed measure would contribute to those objectives.

The representative of New Zealand expressed concern that Uruguay's measure may be more

trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. His delegation requested that Uruguay reconsider its new regulation so that it did not become an unnecessary barrier to trade, as per Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. He pointed out that his country, like Uruguay, had a cooler climate, arguing that the addition of exogenous water was not necessary for New Zealand winemakers at that time, although it was acknowledged that climate change may eventually mean reviewing that decision. Whilst New Zealand did not allow this practice in the winemaking process, his delegation recognized that other countries may require this process due to differing climates and underlined

that New Zealand made no restrictions in imported wine based on the practice. Moreover, it was recognized that countries permitting this practice through climatic necessity had strict controls over its use.

In the Board of the National Grape-Growing and Wine Production Institute (INAVI) Resolution of 14 February, Uruguay referenced the OIV's method of determining isotopic ratios of oxygen in wine as the basis for its new requirements. Many WTO Members were not members of the OIV, and New Zealand did not recognize the OIV as an international standard setting body, as outlined in TBT

Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations with relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the Agreement. Whilst acknowledging that Uruguay had re-notified the draft regulation to the WTO to allow for a longer comment period, his delegation remained concerned that the proposed date of entry into force was 1 June, which New Zealand considered gave Uruguay insufficient time to take comments into account, as well as exporters to readjust practices. Uruguay was requested to delay the entry into force in accordance

with Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement, providing at least a six-month transition period between the

13 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 590 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 8 -

date of final publication of a technical regulation and entry into force, so that comments submitted to the Uruguay TBT enquiry point could be taken into account.

The representative of Uruguay responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/676.

European Union - Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) (IMS ID 59114)

The representative of Indonesia raised concerns about the development of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Category Rule (CR) for intermediate paper products. Indonesia noted the EU's effort to standardize Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conduct and to share PEF information with the public. His delegation requested an update on the final draft of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) as circulated in 2016. He recalled that the draft PEFCR stated that

around 88.5% of the timber used for EU pulp came from EU-27 countries, while the rest was

imported mainly from Russia, Belarus and Norway. The majority of tree species in Europe consisted of pine, spruce and fir, for which the planting and harvesting cycle in the temperate and boreal regions was significantly longer than 20 years, exceeding the maximum period for inclusion in the Land Use Change (LUC) impact assessment stated above. On the other hand, he said, in tropical countries like Indonesia, the plantation trees used for the pulp and paper industry were fast-growing species such as Acacia Sp. and Eucalyptus Sp, with planting and harvesting cycles ranging from five to seven years. In his delegation's view, this constituted unfair discrimination against pulp and paper

products from tropical countries like Indonesia.

The currently proposed accounting standard for LUC effectively exempted the European plantation industry from having to factor in LUC in the LCA for their products. By contrast, since the plantation industry for pulp and paper in Indonesia and in many other developing countries had only begun in the early 1990s, almost all of Indonesian timber sources would be included in emissions due to LUC under the current criteria. This created a fundamental disadvantage for the pulp and

paper industry in Indonesia and other developing countries which had established plantations in the

1990s compared to the industry in Europe, where most plantations had been established more than 20 years previously and before January 2008. Indonesia requested clarification on how the reference date of January 2008 and the cut-off period of 20 years had been chosen and argued that they appeared to be arbitrary and unfair. Indonesia claimed that the values had been developed based on the circumstances of the European pulp and paper industry, where LUC emissions would not be required, and that the pulp and paper products coming from tropical developing countries, where

LUC emissions were likely to be included, would not be able to achieve those values. Indonesia believed this was an area in which the PEFCR could become a non-tariff trade barrier for Indonesian pulp and paper products entering the EU market. Indonesia urged the EU to respond to their concern accordingly, including on the status of PEFCR.

The representative of the European Union underlined that the use of the PEFCR for calculating the Environmental Footprint profile for products was voluntary and therefore did not fall under the scope of the TBT Agreement. Nevertheless, her delegation wished to provide some information on

the context of the document. The PEFCR for Intermediate Paper Products had been developed in a pilot process with voluntary participation of stakeholders, in the framework of the Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations. The voluntary use of the common environmental footprint methods, she explained, should reduce the current proliferation of different methods and initiatives to assess and communicate environmental performance and therefore help addressing confusion and mistrust in environmental performance information. The

methods used in the document were based on international standards and guidelines, including ISO 14067 and International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The final version and detailed information on stakeholders' input were available of the website of the European Commission.15 The EU remained available to exchange information with Indonesia bilaterally in a more appropriate forum.

14 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 591 (under dates raised and references). 15 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/PEFCR_OEFSR_en.htm

G/TBT/M/78

- 9 -

European Union - Concerns on regulations with regard to eco-design requirements for various products in EU (IMS ID 59216)

The representative of China raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/651.

The representative of the European Union recalled the notifications submitted under the TBT Agreement: (i) on 5 July 2018 ecodesign requirements on enterprise servers and data storage

products; (ii) on 8 October 2019 ecodesign requirements for light sources and the energy labelling light sources (G/TBT/N/EU/606 and G/TBT/N/EU/607); on 22 October 2019 ecodesign requirements for household washing machines and household washer-dryers (G/TBT/N/EU/615); and (iv) on 15 October 2019 ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers (G/TBT/N/EU/611). She underlined that all the notifications had provided a 60-day comment period for interested Members, to which Brazil, Japan, China, the US and Korea had responded. She stated that between December

2018 and January 2019 the Ecodesign Regulatory Committee had met to discuss the proposed ecodesign regulations; every proposed measure had been voted favourably by the member States, sometimes with changes to the text. This process, she explained, was based on Regulation (EU) 182/2011, under which committee members representing member States had the opportunity to suggest amendments to the Commission draft implementing acts; the chair might present amended versions, as it endeavoured to find solutions commanding the widest possible support within the committee. After the vote, each Ecodesign Regulation had been subject to a three-month scrutiny

period with the European Parliament and the Council. This period was now over without any objection and the draft measures would soon be adopted by the Commission and published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Only the Ecodesign Regulation on servers and data storage products had been already published on the Official Journal of the European Union (on 15 March 2019). The regulations would repeal the previous legislation on the same product groups. The reviews for ecodesign also included, on top of energy efficiency requirements updated to the technology evolution, new "circular economy" requirements for increasing durability, for improving reparability

and the efficiency of the recycling process at end of life.

European Union - Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation, labelling of spirit drinks, the use of the names of spirit drinks in the presentation and labelling of other foodstuffs, the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks, the use of ethyl alcohol and distillates of agricultural origin in alcoholic beverages, which repeals Regulation (EC) No. 110/2008

(IMS ID 59317)

The representative of Guyana raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/640.

The representative of the European Union clarified that the reservation of the term "agricultural" (in all languages) for rum under geographical indications of the French Overseas Departments and the autonomous region of Madeira was not new, as it was already provided for in current Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 regarding spirit drinks. She added that the issue had not been

introduced through the recast of the spirit drinks Regulation, which just clarified the formulation of that provision. The reservation of that term for rum had existed in the EU since 1989 and was based on prior French legislation and on a tradition dating back many decades. The recently adopted new Regulation (EU) 2019/787 on spirit drinks had entered into force on 25 May 2019 (even if not yet applicable). The EU noted that the draft text of the new spirit drinks Regulation had been notified to the TBT Committee in December 2018 and that, even though the deadline for comments had been extended until 19 February 2019, the EU had received no comments on the issue at stake. Her

delegation had therefore widely shared the text complying with EU transparency standards and legislative practices. She recalled that, in the spirit of transparency and partnership, the EU had discussed the measure in detail, in particular the contested issue, with the relevant third countries in different fora, as well as bilaterally.

16 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 592 (under dates raised and references). 17 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 593 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 10 -

European Union - Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR) (IMS ID 59418)

The representative of the United States expressed support for the development and enforcement of a well-defined medical device regulatory system assuring the safety and performance of medical devices. However, her delegation had serious concerns regarding the implementation of the MDR and IVDR, and US industry was worried about its continued access to the EU's $125 billion

medical device market, $20 billion of which was supplied by US products. She stated that the implementation of MDR/IVDR was behind schedule, raising two particular concerns for industry: (i) the insufficient number of Notified Bodies (NBs) performing certification activities under the MDR/IVDR; and (ii) the insufficient number of implementing acts drafted by the EU, needed to provide details to industry about how to ensure compliance of their products with the new product standards. She asked for an update on how many of the 58 NBs accredited to test and certify

products under old directives were currently designated as operational under the new MDR and

IVDR, and how many were expected to be designated as operational by the end of 2019. It was her delegation's understanding that DG GROW expected no more than 12 NBs to be designated as operational by the end of 2019, a number the US deemed inadequate to provide sufficient capacity to ensure continued regulatory approvals by May 2020 and May 2022.

The US was concerned that as only two of the eighteen implementing regulations had been issued, EU standardizing bodies could not begin work on developing the standards industry may use

to comply with the MDR/IVMDR. Given this backlog, US industry maintained that the product standards necessary for compliance with the MDR could not be completed before the deadline. The US considered that the MDR and IVDR provisions for warehousing and a grace period, intended to provide transitional relief, were insufficient. The warehousing provision was insufficient because buyers and producers could not predict demand, making it difficult to warehouse the right amount of product to meet that demand through the implementation delays. Moreover, warehousing was expensive, degradation was common with medical technology, and the technology itself could

quickly become obsolete. She added that the grace periods were insufficient because CE mark

product registrations compliant with the old directives may expire before the end of the grace period, in 2024. Given these concerns, the US urged the EU to delay implementation by three years to allow for US exporters to adapt to the new requirements. If not possible, the EU was urged to allow for legacy products currently deemed safe to be sold on the market until 2024 and to ask NBs to provide new products, requiring testing for the first time, with priority access to testing and CE marking

certification over products being re-certified to the new requirements.

The representative of Canada echoed the points raised by the US related to the implementation of this measure, notably the insufficient number of Notified Bodies (NBs) and expressed interest in hearing any additional information and clarification the EU could provide. Representatives of the Canadian medical devices industry had also informed his delegation of their concerns with regard to certain aspects of the measure.

The representative of the European Union responded to the concerns raised. The full

statement is contained in G/TBT/W/654.

India - Moisture content for Cassia Vera (Cinnamomum Burmani) (IMS ID 59519)

The representative of Indonesia raised concerns on the regulation on Food Safety & Standards (Food Product Standard & Food Additive) Regulations, specifically on the requirements of moisture content for Cassia Vera (Cinnamomum Burmani). Her delegation recalled that India had stipulated the regulation back in 2011, setting the moisture content of Cassia Vera to not more than 12% by weight, both for whole product and ground/powder product. There was concern, however, that since

early 2019 Indonesian exporters were no longer able to export Cassia Vera to India, even though they had complied with the maximum moisture content set in the regulation. The customs authorities in the ports of Cochin and Tuticorin required that the moisture content for Cassia be lower than 12%; Indonesia therefore requested that India be consistent in implementing the regulation. In addition, Indonesia requested scientific evidence of related food safety risk assessments in setting

18 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 594 (under dates raised and references). 19 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 595 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 11 -

a more stringent limit of moisture content than the existing international standard (ISO 6538:1997) and, hence, more trade restrictive than necessary.

The representative of India informed Members that the quality parameters for Cassia (Whole/Powder) had been laid down in Food Safety & Standards (Food Product Standard & Food Additive) Regulations, 2011 and notified to WTO on 7 July 2010. The regulation stipulated that the moisture content in Cassia should not be more than 12% by weight meaning that a maximum 12%

moisture by weight was acceptable. She underlined that this requirement had been specified taking into account the geographical conditions of India and ultimately to prevent the formation of aflatoxins. Recalling its response to the Indonesian TBT enquiry point in May 2019 regarding alleged refusal of Cassia Vera at customs in Cochin and Tuticorin ports, Indonesia said that this issue was relevant to trade facilitation and not to the TBT Committee; her delegation made itself available to discuss with Indonesia bilaterally.

3.2.2 Previously raised concerns

Indonesia — Technical Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adoption and Supervision of Indonesian National Standards for Obligatory Toy Safety, G/TBT/N/IDN/64, G/TBT/N/IDN/64/Add.3 (IMS ID 32820)

The representative of the United States noted that dialogue on Indonesia's toy standard dated back to 2012. It was her delegation's understanding that Indonesia's Ministry of Industry (MOI) had been working with stakeholders to address outstanding issues so as to resolve the long-standing

concerns. She requested an update on the timeline for issuance of implementing measures to MOI Regulation 29/2018.

The US recognized that the recent introduction of Scheme 5 for importers was an attempt to ease the burden on importers. However, industry was reporting that factory inspections were required every six months. She asked what the rationale was for this. US toy industry had noted

that a limited amount of toy testing was being conducted at branches of international labs affiliated to LSPro or Ministry of Industry appointed labs. She asked if the Ministry of Industry would consider

allowing these testing facilities to conduct the factory inspections rather than flying inspectors from Indonesia to each factory.

US toy industry noted that Scheme 5 did not provide relief to toy importers. The cost and frequency of factory inspections would most likely deter toy importers from using this option and would lead to toy importers choosing to consolidate shipments and opt for per shipment testing. This could result in fewer quality toys being imported from reputable manufacturers and more black-

market goods that circumvent testing.

3.52. The representatives of the European Union and Japan reiterated concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.21

3.53. The representative of Canada supported the concerns raised by other delegations. As previously stated under the new STC 422, Canada supported informed regulations by any WTO Member, including Indonesia, that ensured the safety of children. However, Canadian stakeholders continued to have concerns regarding the revised safety requirements included in the measure,

namely: domestic products continued to enjoy a more favourable testing frequency; only certification in a limited number of Indonesian facilities was permitted; and, the requirements were more trade restrictive than necessary. At the March 2019 TBT Committee meeting, Indonesia noted that the development of implementation guidelines for Regulation Number 29/2018 was underway. He asked Indonesia to provide an update on the status of these guidelines and when WTO Members and stakeholders could expect to review and provide comments on them.

The representative of Indonesia informed the Committee that the current MOI Regulation

29/2018 included the guidelines for the option of type 1 and 5 for product certification procedures. imported products and domestic products were treated equally. Indonesia would continue to observe how these measures worked in practice and would see whether it was necessary to update the

20 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 328 (under dates raised and references). 21 G/TBT/W/627 and G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.59, respectively. 22 India - Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2019.

G/TBT/M/78

- 12 -

regulation with the latest toy standards. As set out in the MOI regulation 29/2018, Indonesia recognized foreign testing laboratories under the framework of international accreditation arrangement on ILAC and MRA on a reciprocal basis.

European Union — Draft Implementing Regulations amending Regulation (EC) No. 607/2009 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical

indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products, G/TBT/N/EEC/264, G/TBT/N/EEC/264/Add.1 (IMS ID 34523)

The representative of the United States voiced her delegation's disappointment that this STC continued to be raised. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/669.

The representative of Argentina reiterated concerns expressed at previous TBT Committee

meetings. Argentinian wine continued to suffer discrimination through the ban on the inclusion of

the terms "reserva" and "grand reserva" on labels. This continued, despite the fact that Argentina had concluded the procedure for the adoption of these terms in 2018. Once again Argentina urged the EU to activate all the applications for the registration of traditional terms by third countries such as Argentina which were currently paralysed without any legal justification. This constituted a technical barrier to trade. He thanked the EU for the recent bilateral meetings and hoped that this issue would finally proceed smoothly.

The representative of Brazil reiterated concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee

meeting.24

The representative of the European Union repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.25

European Union — Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs,

G/TBT/N/EU/139, G/TBT/N/EU/139/Add.1 and G/TBT/N/EU/593 (IMS ID 51226)

The representative of the United States raised two issues with regard to the EU's registration process for protected geographical indication (PGI) – first regarding the applications for "danbo" and

"havarti" cheese, and second regarding the notification of G/TBT/N/EU/593. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/670.

The representative of Uruguay said his delegation regretted having to refer once again to previous statements made in the TBT Committee27 and Council for Trade in Goods, on the lack of progress in the dialogue with the European Union in resolving this issue. With respect to the process for the registration of the term "havarti" as a geographical indication protected in the European

Union, for the benefit of Denmark, Uruguay requested an update on the status of the process, and noted Uruguay would closely follow its development.

The representative of Argentina thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting. However, concerns remained with the registration of the term danbo as a protected GI by the EU, despite it being a generic name of a type of cheese including in the Codex standard 126. This constituted a precedent which undermined the work of harmonization and establishment of international standards by Codex to which the EU adheres to.

The representative of New Zealand reiterated concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.28 He also said that any suggestion that the term "Havarti" should be registered only amplified New Zealand's concern as it was a further example of the integrity of the Codex Standard being disregarded.

23 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 345 (under dates raised and references). 24 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.64. 25 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.65. 26 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 512 (under dates raised and references). 27 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.67. 28 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.68.

G/TBT/M/78

- 13 -

The representative of Australia informed the Committee that Australia's dairy industry was one of a number of international stakeholders that objected to the protection of Havarti in the EU. There was continued concern about EU decisions to grant cheese GIs where there was also a Codex standard for cheese. It was important to continue to support the integrity of international standards and to maintain access to common names when making decisions on GIs.

The representative of the European Union said that the procedure for granting of protection

to the term "Danbo" as a Geographical Indication in the European Union had been finalised and the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1901 of 18 October 2017 was publicly available. The procedure for the adoption of a measure as regards the term "Havarti" was on-going. As the EU had stated at previous TBT Committee meetings, any issues strictly concerning intellectual property rights should not be discussed under the TBT Committee or through TBT notification channels.

The representative of the United States took the floor to clarify that, as indicated at a previous

TBT Committee meeting, the EU preferred to discuss this issue in a GI-focused forum. The US disagreed with this and said it was a TBT matter. The EU had correctly notified its quality schemes regulation under the TBT Agreement precisely because of the TBT implications, such as the labelling elements and relevant international standards.

European Union - Chlorothalonil (pesticide active substance) G/TBT/N/EU/625 (IMS ID 57929)

3.66. The representatives of Colombia, the United States and Ecuador raised concerns with this

measure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/661, G/TBT/W/671 and G/TBT/W/649.

3.67. The representative of Brazil shared the concerns raised by Colombia and the US and regretted the EU's decision to base this measure on a hazard-based approach, without a proper risk analysis and compliance with long-standing scientific principles. The non-renewal of approval for chlorothalonil did not take into consideration that it was currently authorized in 109 countries and

that the MRLs allowed by Codex could reach up to 70 mg/kg, depending on the product.

3.68. This issue had negative impacts on Brazil's exports of agricultural products, such as banana,

coffee, citrus fruits, papaya, watermelon, amongst others, which used this substance for pest control. For all these commodities, Brazil adopted MRLs below those established by Codex, in line with concerns related to consumer safety. Brazil reiterated concerns with the fact that some hazard-based analyses conducted by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) had led to the non-renewal of certificates and subsequently to the reduction of MRLs.

3.69. Finally, in line with the presentations made by Brazil during the June 2019 thematic session

on transparency, he reinforced Brazil's systemic concern with the fact that issues related to the non-renewal of agricultural pesticides were being dealt with firstly in the TBT Committee. In many cases the communication of non-renewal of approval of important substances for trade of agricultural commodities was notified in the TBT Committee as an announcement of the future reduction of MRLs

in the SPS Committee. As this situation stands, Brazil would continue to raise and support these concerns in both committees.

3.70. The representative of Panama continued to raise concerns expressed at past meetings of the

TBT and SPS Committees regarding the reduction of the maximum levels of active substances by the EU, specifically the active substances chlorothalonil and buprofrezin. Since 1987, Panama had adopted the maximum levels of active substances recommended by Codex, which were internationally recognized by WTO Members as the standards for world food safety and the promotion of fair trade. Although every Member was free to take measures necessary to ensure the safety of its citizens, these measures should not be unnecessarily strict, to the point of adversely affecting trade.

3.71. He said the effects of this measure were wide reaching, including the impact on vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples, whose employment and incomes may be abruptly reduced or eliminated, in disregard of the principle of raising the standard of living of all of inhabitants of

Members. The EU's decision to reduce the maximum levels of these active substances to 0.01,

29 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 579 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 14 -

essentially corresponding to undetectable traces, was equivalent to prohibiting their use. This could interrupt the trade in bananas, among other products which might be affected, and do serious harm to the well-being and employment of thousands of families belonging to the Ngobe Buglé indigenous people, the main source of labour for the banana plantations of Changuinola and Puerto Armuelles. In 2017, the trade in bananas between Panama and the European Union exceeded 17 million boxes, equivalent to $180 million, bananas being the main income-producing product in the region.

3.72. Panama said the levels of active substances used in these products were meticulously monitored by Panamanian institutions and by international organizations, such as the FLO (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International) and other American regional health authorities, and in line with Codex standards and recommendations. Moreover, he said they were essential tools for combatting plant diseases such as black sigatoka, caused by the fungus Mycosphaerella fijiensis Morelet, which affected the banana and had proliferated with the rise in global temperatures, due to

the release of contaminants such as carbon dioxide by the large economies which were now bent on

doubly punishing the inhabitants of developing countries with trade-restrictive measures. Panama considered it of vital importance to defend the use of chlorothalonil for controlling black sigatoka; otherwise there would be a risk of the fungus becoming resistant, imperilling the commercial production of bananas in Panama by reducing the weight of the bunch by some 50% and causing 100% production losses due to the deterioration in clarity. This fungus was found only in the tropics, he said, so that it was understandable that the European Union should not need to use chlorothalonil.

3.73. In line with Panama's previous statements in the Committee and in response to the proposal by the EU to improve the dialogue in order to resolve trade concerns, Panama called the EU to set up technical talks with the Members affected. Panama also invited the EU to reconsider taking a risk analysis approach in order to adopt measures that do not go beyond international standards and scientific studies, nor adversely affect international trade, without having any additional advantages.

3.74. The representative of Costa Rica supported the concerns raised by Colombia and the United States in relation to the draft implementation regulation proposed by the European Union, under

which approval for the use of the active substance chlorothalonil would not be renewed. He reiterated that the use of this active substance was of fundamental importance for agricultural production in Costa Rica. Non-renewal would cause serious problems for the Costa Rican productive sector, since currently there were no substitutes or similar phytosanitary products with a better environmental or toxicological profile.

3.75. He explained that Chlorothalonil was used to combat pests of economic importance,

particularly in banana production. Costa Rica was the world's second ranking exporter of bananas, with sales valued at approximately USD 1 billion, accounting for around 2% of GDP and 38.6% of agricultural GDP and generating 40 thousand direct and some 100 thousand indirect jobs. The main destination for exports was the European Union to which more than 50% of the fruit produced in the country was shipped, which illustrated even more clearly the impact that would result from the implementation of the measure.

3.76. The measure proposed by the European Union was based on the alleged risk that could be

posed by chlorothalonil at both health and environmental levels. In this connection, Costa Rica highlighted that its domestic producers were applying good agricultural practices based on widely recognized certifications such as Global Gap, Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade. In addition, the State Phytosanitary Service's Agrochemical Residues Analysis Laboratory had carried out extensive sampling of bananas, which revealed an absence of chlorothalonil residues, thereby confirming the good practices being employed and the absence of risks for health and the environment.

3.77. Finally, he noted that the non-renewal of chlorothalonil proposed by the EU was not based on

a risk assessment required in conformity with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The non-renewal was based on concerns and questions with regard to which it had not been possible to arrive at conclusive results, as indicated by the EU in the notification of the measure.

3.78. In conclusion, Costa Rica strongly urged the EU that the non-renewal of the use of chlorothalonil be made subject to the prior implementation of a risk analysis. Furthermore, any

discussion concerning the possible effects on public health related with this substance should be

conducted within a multilateral framework, through the work in Codex, which had established permissible chlorothalonil tolerances for various agricultural products.

G/TBT/M/78

- 15 -

3.79. The representative of Paraguay continued to raise concerns on the measure, stating that chlorothalonil was a low risk pesticide and was available for free sale in Paraguay. It was part of the rotation of substances to avoid resistance to other main substances. The studies that had been carried out were not conclusive, and he stated that the risk assessment should be carried out in accordance with international principles.

3.80. The representative of Guatemala supported concerns raised by other Members.

3.81. The representative of Honduras shared the concerns expressed by the US and Colombia. Honduras was closely following discussions on this matter in this and other Committees.

3.82. The representative of the European Union responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/655.

European Union - Transitional periods for MRLs and international consultations (IMS ID 58030)

3.83. The representative of the United States continued to raised concerns shared by seven other Members regarding the EU's transitional measures. Specifically, the US was concerned that transition measures did not provide adequate time for legally-produced commodities to clear the channels of trade. The US was also concerned that the EU appeared to allow for EU products produced prior to the entry into force of the new standard to continue to be sold, while imported products were required to comply with the new standard at the point of entry, regardless of compliance at the date of production.

3.84. The uncertainty created by the insufficient transition period created a burden for growers who may need to make crop protection decisions a year or more in advance of their final product reaching a foreign market's border. This was particularly challenging for commodities with longer storage and distribution cycles, such as dried fruits, dried nuts, canned products, frozen products, juices, wines,

and spirits. For these products, the EU's short transitional arrangements were creating situations in which goods produced in accordance with the EU standards in effect at the time of production may no longer be eligible to enter the EU in the future.

3.85. When the concern about transition periods had been raised in the previous TBT Committee, the EU responded that the concern would be better aligned with the SPS Committee. While the US agreed that the establishment and enforcement of MRLs was an SPS issue, the EU had indicated that TBT notifications should be considered by agricultural producers when making crop protection decisions. Therefore, the US supported the concerns raised by other Members, and requested that the EU consider their collective concerns.

3.86. The representative of Brazil reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.31

3.87. The representative of Panama shared concerns raised by other Members.

3.88. The representative of Colombia raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/662.

3.89. The representative of Costa Rica associated itself with the concerns expressed by the US, as well as with the request for an extension of the period for compliance with the new tolerance

established for buprofezin in view of its enormous impact on Costa Rica's banana exports to the European market.

3.90. The EU's review of the tolerances for various substances used in agricultural production was a source of huge concern for Costa Rica. As mentioned by other Members, he explained that it was impossible for agricultural production to adjust to new requirements or tolerances within a period of

30 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 580 (under dates raised and references). 31 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.43.

G/TBT/M/78

- 16 -

six months when the registration of new molecules alone had to be subjected to a complex assessment process lasting much longer than that.

3.91. Costa Rica reiterated the request made by other Members to extend the period for the application of the new tolerance for buprofezin in bananas. At the same time, Costa Rica strongly urged the EU to enter into a dialogue with the agricultural product-exporting countries which found themselves seriously affected by the changes in the MRLs unilaterally introduced by a trading

partner. Costa Rica hoped that studies, analyses and decisions be adopted at multilateral level within the framework of Codex, in accordance with the spirit of the WTO rules.

3.92. The representative of Paraguay shared concerns expressed by other Members. Paraguay considered that the transitional period granted for the implementation of the modified MRLs was insufficient for its producers to be able to adjust their mode of production. Moreover, these new EU requirements ran counter to the principle of harmonization, as they were not adjusted to

internationally established standards.

3.93. The representative of El Salvador shared concerns expressed by other Members and continued to follow the policy of review of MRLs applied by the EU, given to the current and future economic impact of this policy on the exports of El Salvadorian agricultural products. In addition to concerns related to the scientific basis of this measure, she said the six months transition period did not respond to the reality of this production and the possibilities of farmers to substitute for another registered substance and be allowed in trade with the EU.

3.94. The representative of Ecuador supported concerns with this measure, which was of special interest to developing countries. Ecuador considered that prior to the entry into force of a standard that involved a change in the use of a substance or a reduction in the MRL, the EU should seriously consider the possible effects on agricultural production. In particular, the EU should take into account that the registration of a new substance as a replacement required an assessment period of at least 24 months for the purpose of evaluating its performance and verifying its efficacy. In addition, she

said it was necessary to consider a period of not less than 12 months for the issuance of the

registration, and therefore a minimum of 36 months was needed to approve the use of a new substance. Ecuador said that excessively short periods had a profound impact on developing country producers, many of whom were farmers with few resources and no access to other sources of income.

3.95. The representative of Canada shared the concerns expressed by other Members. It was essential that the EU's deferred application date and transition period for MRLs take into account the

need for exporters to adapt to new requirements and ensure a level playing field between domestic producers and foreign exporters. She said that failure to do so could have a significant impact on international trade.

3.96. The representative of Guatemala supported concerns raised by other Members.

3.97. The representative of the European Union repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.32

China - Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation (Draft)

G/TBT/N/CHN/1310, G/TBT/N/CHN/1311 (IMS ID 57633)

3.98. The representative of Japan expressed appreciation with respect to the classification on management of new ingredient application procedures in the Draft Regulation, as notified by China on 18 December 2018 (G/TBT/N/CHN/1310). On the other hand, some of the concerns which Japan had continued to express had still not been improved or clarified in this revision. In particular, Japan maintained concerns on five points, as elaborated in its comments at the previous TBT Committee meeting: (i) Disclosure of new ingredients; (ii) Disclosure of efficacy testing materials; (iii) Labelling

content requirements; (iv) Responsible persons for products; and (v), National treatment for animal testing.34 Furthermore, Japan requested that China provide an adequate transition period for implementation, of at least one year, to avoid confusion in the market. Japan understood that certain

32 G/TBT/M/77, paras 3.47-3.48. 33 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 576 (under dates raised and references). 34 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.14.

G/TBT/M/78

- 17 -

elements would be stipulated in the detailed regulations. Regarding those detailed regulations, Japan also requested that China provide sufficient time prior to entry into force as well as a sufficient time period for comments from Members.

3.99. The representative of the United States commended China on its efforts to develop a 21st century cosmetics regulation and for its WTO notifications of the draft Cosmetics Supervision Authorization Regulation (G/TBT/N/CHN/1310) and the draft Measures for Cosmetics Registration

and Filing (G/TBT/N/CHN/1311).

3.100. The US was nevertheless concerned that via the Registration and Filing measures (G/TBT/N/CHN/1311), China would require that all products, imported and domestic, be tested in country by local agents before product filing, with no options for utilizing an international conformity assessment scheme.

3.101. In the US comments on G/TBT/N/CHN/1311, submitted to China's enquiry point, the US

asked if China would consider, in lieu of the required tests listed in the draft measure, self-certification to ISO standards for cosmetics good manufacturing practices and with the guidelines for product safety assessment, published by the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulations (ICCR). She noted that ICCR represented cosmetics regulators from peers of China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), including from the US, EU, Japan, South Korea and Brazil. The US also asked, in its comments, for China to explain why the required testing specified in G/TBT/N/CHN/1311 differed for importers versus domestic manufacturers.

3.102. The US was also concerned that China may not sufficiently protect companies' confidential business information. The US understood that cosmetics filings must include product formulations, and that these filings and the associated tests would be published on a public website. This raised concerns about how that information would be protected. While the US applauded China's efforts to promote consumer transparency, she questioned whether the aforementioned measures could be refined to provide consumers with the required information, without compromising companies'

proprietary information, including product formulations.

3.103. The US asked that China give full consideration to comments on G/TBT/N/CHN/1310 and G/TBT/N/CHN/1311 submitted by the US government and industry, as well as to continue to notify the Cosmetic Supervision and Administration Regulation implementing standards and guidance, so that all WTO Members and other stakeholders could provide comments. The success of China's cosmetics and personal care industry was important to the US, given both the number of Chinese products used daily by American consumers, as well as the economic opportunity China represented

to US companies seeking to serve China's growing consumer base. The US trusted that China would recognize that these comments were provided in a spirit of mutual cooperation.

3.104. The representative of the Republic of Korea reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.35

3.105. The representative of China recalled that it had notified the Cosmetic Supervision and Administration Regulation to the TBT Committee in December 2018. She explained that the purpose of the revision of this regulation was to regulate production and trading, strengthen management,

guarantee the quality and safety of cosmetics, protect consumer health and promote the development and innovation of the industry. China strictly complied with the rules of business secret protection. China had notified the Regulation on Cosmetic Inspection in Registration and Filing on 22 February 2019 and other implementing regulations and rules were under drafting. Presently, this regulation was being revised, and China welcomed Members' comments.

Uruguay – Labelling of Packaged Food (IMS ID 57836)

3.106. The representative of the United States reiterated the various concerns raised by her

delegation at the previous TBT Committee meeting.37 She also recalled Uruguay's clarification in the bilateral meeting that positive health claims would be allowed for foods such as yogurts, cereals, or oatmeal which were required to carry the warning label but may also contain other beneficial

35 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.15. 36 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 578 (under dates raised and references). 37 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.22.

G/TBT/M/78

- 18 -

nutrients, be fortified, or make other positive contributions to an overall diet. This was a positive development. The US asked whether Uruguay had reviewed evidence-based international and regional standards to determine if they would fulfil Uruguay's public health objectives. The US recalled that its most recent comments on the Decree and draft Law included a list of international standards that should be considered when drafting a nutrition labelling regulation. In the original draft document, there was no mention, for instance, of Codex standards being utilized or evaluated,

while the final decree only mentioned the Pan American Health Organization's (PAHO) Nutrient Profile Model. Standards developed by the Codex Alimentarius were considered "international standards" by WTO Members and were frequently raised as examples of "international standards" in the TBT Committee. The US further asked whether Uruguay had consider that the required black and white octagonal "stop sign" symbols, as well as the Decree's new requirement that the symbols must contain the initials "MPH" in addition to the statement that the product was in "excess of" a specified

nutrient, may cause consumers to avoid products that could be part of a balanced diet. Uruguay was also asked to indicate what studies had demonstrated that this interpretive approach was more

effective than labelling presenting nutrient and calorie information based on serving size portions of the product. Had Uruguay evaluated any alternative labelling schemes, or considered whether a voluntary approach could provide consumers with similar information in a manner less burdensome and costly for producers while still achieving Uruguay's valid health objective?

3.107. The representative of the European Union shared the concerns expressed by the US and

asked that Uruguay provide a written reply to the EU comments.

3.108. The representatives of Colombia, Guatemala and Costa Rica supported the concerns raised and follow it with interest. Costa Rica referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting, circulated in document G/TBT/W/613.

3.109. The representative of Uruguay responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/677.

European Union - Draft Commission Regulation laying down eco-design

requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) 642/2009 (and its accompanying annexes)" G/TBT/N/EU/609, G/TBT/N/EU/610 (IMS ID 57538)

The representative of the United States raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/672.

The representative of China recalled that after comment period, the EU had revised the regulation and announced a new version on 8 May 2019. This new, stricter version also contained several additional requirements. For example, the restriction for halogen flame retardants in Annex 2D of the regulation was a significant change that would affect global chemical sectors. China thus asked the EU to provide for an opportunity to make comments on such new requirements. According to scientific principle, China said, a restriction for all the halogen flame retardants was not necessary.

Normally, practical logical research and risk assessment of any chemical were based on a single

chemical substance instead of a class of chemical substances. There were more than 100 halogen flame retardants. It would be oversimplified to assume that all chemical substances with halogen shared the same attributes and thus hard to deny the probability that more green and eco-friendly halogen flame retardants may be created in the future. Thus, there had never been any regulations that restricted all the halogen flame retardants in other countries, other than in the EU. In fact, even international organizations, such as the IEC, terminated the establishment of too low halogen standards in 2018. China also recalled that plastics with halogen flame retardants had the unique

advantage according to the mechanic process for plastics. ABS plastics added with halogen flame retardants could maintain their original fire safety after four or five times. China asked the EU to reconsider the restrictions for all halogen flame retardants according to scientific basis and evidence which was used by UN Stockholm convention, EU REACH and rules of other relevant regulations rather than to restrict all such substances.

38 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 575 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 19 -

The representative of Japan reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting39, and asked the EU to ensure that the each implementing measure for individual product groups under the eco-design directive be established in a transparent manner, avoiding becoming unnecessary trade barriers.

The representative of the European Union repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.40 She also confirmed that the text that was voted in December had been

three months under scrutiny. This text was soon going to be adopted by the Commission, as part of a package of 10 Ecodesign measures.

Republic of Korea - Warning statement and graphic health warnings on alcoholic beverages, G/TBT/N/KOR/817 (IMS ID 57741)

The representative of the United States expressed full support for the objective of managing

the public health challenges related to drunk driving. However, her delegation was nonetheless

concerned with various aspects of the proposed measure. The US understood this measure to include, among others, the following requirements: (i) a warning on the label to the effect that driving under the influence of alcohol was "equivalent to murder;" and (ii) a picture on the label depicting a traffic accident or other harmful effects of driving under the influence of alcohol (including a warning photo). The US also had federal mandatory health warning requirements for alcoholic beverages. Federal regulations required that any alcoholic beverage containing 0.5% alcohol or higher have a Health Warning Statement on the label. US regulations set out a number of

requirements relating to the font and appearance of the Health Warning Statement, including that it be legible, appear on a contrasting background, and be separate and apart from all other label information. However, there was no federal requirement in the US for a graphic warning (i.e., a picture) on alcoholic beverage labels. The US also supported several public-private partnership initiatives related to combating the harmful use of alcohol and driving under the influence of alcohol. The 2015-2020 US Dietary Guidelines did not recommend that individuals start or increase drinking for any reason and, if alcohol was consumed, the Guidelines stated that it should be consumed in

moderation - up to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men - and only by adults of legal drinking age. It had come to US' attention, however, that Korea had recently taken other steps to address drinking and driving. In December 2018, a bill to amend Korea's Road Traffic Act had been passed by the National Assembly. This amendment reduced the allowable blood alcohol level for driving under the influence of alcohol and instituted the revocation of an individual's driving license if their blood alcohol level was found to be above 0.08%. Had Korea considered allowing time

to analyse the impact of this measure before making additional changes to its labelling requirements? Could Korea consider other, less trade-restrictive means to achieve its objective, such as its domestic initiatives to reduce drinking and driving?

The representative of Japan was concerned that Korea had not presented any detailed warning statements and graphics showing the dangers of drunk driving, nor a date of entry into force of this Amendment. Japan asked Korea to present a full English text of this amendment, as early as possible. Japan also asked Korea to indicate how long the transition period for this

Amendment would be, which should be adequate in order to avoid any confusion. Japan also stated

that related international standards, such as "CODEX General Guidelines on Claims" (CAC/GL1-1979), should be taken into consideration for the amendment.

The representative of the European Union said that her delegation supported the concerns raised by others and invited Korea to provide further details about the health warning statements and also to respond to the comments sent to the Korean enquiry point.

The representative of Mexico said that, although her delegation recognized the objective of

reducing the impact related to the abuse of alcohol consumption and the need to educate the people in this regard, it nonetheless considered that there were different alternatives to the warning statements proposed by Korea, that might be more effective without being more unnecessarily trade restrictive. Mexico asked Korea to examine the results of other recently implemented and less trade-restrictive measures.

39 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.12. 40 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.13. 41 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 577 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 20 -

The representative of Canada said that, while Canada and the Canadian wine industry supported the goal of minimizing the potential harm associated with the misuse or abuse of alcohol, it was nonetheless concerned that this regulation may have an impact on trade, especially for smaller producers. As a wine-producing country, Canada was interested in receiving further clarity and information on the measure in order to ensure that that any unnecessary disruption to trade in Canadian alcoholic beverages to Korea could be avoided.

The representative of Australia said that, while his delegation recognized the right of government to take measures necessary to protect public health, it on the other hand emphasized the importance of compliance with WTO obligations, in particular the requirements that measures be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner and in a way that would not be more trade restrictive than necessary. Australia sought clarification as to the evidence on which the draft amendments and labelling requirements were based and how the proposed measures would

contribute to public health objectives. Australia asked Korea to provide guidance on the final wording

of the warning statements and images that were required to appear on alcoholic beverages, as well as the specifications, such as size and placement, required for the warning statements and images. Australia would also appreciate clarification from Korea on: (i) the expected timeframe for implementation of the measures; and (ii) whether exemptions or a transition period would apply for products that were already in market or in transit when the new measures were implemented.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said that the revision of the National Health

Promotion Act, reflecting Members' comments from the previous TBT Committee meeting, had been notified. Currently, the relevant ministries were gathering opinions from each Member, but the related discussions and procedures were not yet in progress, so the specifics with respect to the enforcement (such as whether or not it would be enforced, the detailed contents, and enforcement date) had not yet been determined. Korea also said that it would consider the re-notification to the TBT Committee and fully discussing the matters with Members, only after the specific enforcement date and the revised draft were confirmed. Other requests raised by Members at this meeting, would

be sent to capital for further consideration.

China — Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices (Order No. 650 of the State Council), G/TBT/N/CHN/1313 (IMS ID 42842)

The representative of the Republic of Korea thanked China for giving Members the opportunity to comment on the draft Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices contained in G/TBT/N/CHN/1313. Korea had expressed concerns regarding this proposed

regulation at previous TBT Committee meetings.43 She reiterated Korea's concerns over the Chinese regulations, especially on the requirement on test reports.

a. Firstly, Article 8 of the draft regulation required that the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) conduct inspection on quality management capacity of medical devices manufacturers in order to ensure the safety and efficacy of the products. She asked for clarification on the inspection method, such as whether the inspection would take place on-site or could be replaced by document review when the manufacturer held

certificates of quality (for example, ISO 13485 and US21 CFR 820), and relevant standards.

b. Secondly, Article 9.2 of the draft regulation provided that China would recognize self-inspection reports or inspection reports issued by qualified medical device inspection institutions. While regulators in the US, the EU and Korea generally recognized test report issued by internationally accredited laboratories, China recognized test reports only issued by designated laboratories located in China. Korea was concerned that this caused

significant delays and costs in licensing and registration of new medical devices in China. Furthermore, an administrative policy was in operation in China leading to a smaller number of laboratories available for inspections, causing additional delays in carrying out necessary inspections. Korea therefore requested that internationally-accredited or other competent laboratories outside of China be included as "qualified medical device inspection institutions".

42 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 428 (under dates raised and references). 43 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.83.

G/TBT/M/78

- 21 -

c. Thirdly, with regard to Article 19 on clinical trials conducted overseas, more specific information was requested on whether the subject of the stated clinical trials overseas was confined to Chinese nationals residing outside of China or included non-Chinese nationals outside of China. Fourth, the proposed Article 48 of the regulation provided that China prohibited the import and sales of used medical devices. Korea believed this ban raised national treatment concerns by being applied only to imported medical devices. China was

requested to remove this provision.

d. Lastly, Korea requested that a sufficient transition period be provided so as to prevent any unnecessary confusion and allow time for industry to prepare for the new regulation.

Korea requested that China explain the current state of play, including the date of entry into force of the draft, and provide a response to comments submitted.

The representative of China repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee

meeting.44

China - Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) Information and Communication Technology Regulation, G/TBT/N/CHN/1172 (IMS ID 48945)

The representative of the European Union referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.46 These concerns continued to be maintained.

The representative of China informed the Committee that the former CIRC's Information and Communication Technology Regulation had been drafted in response to the merging of the former

CBRC and CIRC. China always abided by the WTO commitments, and was open and transparent in drafting information technology measures in banking and insurance sectors. These measures would without doubt be applied equally to domestic and foreign companies.

Ireland - Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015 G/TBT/N/IRL/2 (IMS ID 51647)

The representative of the United States thanked the EU for the response to its comments on G/TBT/N/IRL/2. She indicated that, while supporting Ireland's objective of managing public health challenges, questions remained about Ireland's regulatory process for implementing its new labelling

requirements for alcoholic beverages. She referred to the United States' statement48 and the EU's response49 on this matter during the previous TBT Committee meeting.

The representative reiterated its request for clarifications on the regulatory process of the forthcoming secondary legislation and to provide an expected timeline for the corresponding notifications to the WTO. She asked Ireland to confirm that a commenting period would be provided, and that comments would be considered prior to the three-year transition period for implementation.

The representative of Argentina thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting during which a

status update on the regulation had been provided and the EU explained that sections 12 and 13 of the bill, corresponding to labelling and advertising, still had to be implemented through related standards. Referring to their concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings, he stated that the requirements of having public health warnings on the direct consumption of alcohol without differentiating between excessive and responsible alcohol consumption was disproportionate with respect to the legitimate objective to protect human health and might create unnecessary technical

barriers to trade.

The representative of Australia recognized the right to take measures necessary to protect public health and appreciated Ireland's efforts to address a legitimate public health concern. Noting the implementation time frames for 23 of 31 sections the Public Health Bill 2015, he sought

44 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.168. 45 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 489 (under dates raised and references). 46 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.99. 47 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 516 (under dates raised and references). 48 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.189. 49 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.194.

G/TBT/M/78

- 22 -

clarification on the details and implementation of the remaining eight sections, in particular on section 12 on labelling and on the clearance process at EU level. He stated that advice on the expected timing for implementation of the new requirements would be appreciated.

The representative of Mexico thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting and referred the Committee to statements delivered at previous TBT Committee meetings.50 She asked Ireland to share information on the development of the regulation and in particular on the content and date of

entry into force.

The representative of the European Union referred the Committee to statements delivered at previous TBT Committee meetings.51 In November 2018, the Health Minister had signed an order to commence several sections of the bill that did not require secondary legislation prior to being enforced.

a. With effect from 12 November 2019: alcohol advertising in or on public service vehicles,

at public transport stops or stations and within 200m of a school, early years centre or a local authority playground would be prohibited; alcohol advertising in cinemas would be prohibited except in screenings with an over 18 classification or in licensed premises in a cinema; and children's clothing promoting alcohol would be prohibited. These were:

b. With effect from 12 November 2020: in mixed retail outlets alcohol products and advertising were confined to one of the following: an area separated by a 1.2m high barrier, or units in which alcohol products were not visible up to 1.5m height, or up to

three units that could be a maximum of 1m wide by 2.2m high. In addition, alcohol products could be contained but not be visible in a unit behind the counter.

c. With effect from 12 November 2021: there was a prohibition on alcohol advertising on a sports area during a sporting event, at events aimed at children or at events in which the majority of participants or competitors were children; and alcohol sponsorship of events

aimed at children, events at which the majority of participants or competitors were children and events involving driving or racing motor vehicles was prohibited.

China - Draft revised Encryption Law of the People's Republic of China by the Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) (IMS ID 53452)

The representative of Japan referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting and said that Japan continued to have concerns regarding China's draft Encryption Law.53 China was requested to provide relevant information regarding the revision process and to implement the law in a transparent manner.

The representative of the European Union continued to raise concerns on this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/656.

The representative of China informed the Committee that China would press forward with the Law on Cryptography in accordance with the Legislative Law and adhere to the principles of law-making in a well-conceived and democratic way. Scientific verification and public consultation would be conducted, ensuring stakeholders' participation in the legislative process. The Law on Cryptography (Draft for consultation) had been released in April 2017 for public consultation and

domestic and foreign parties had provided many constructive suggestions. China was actively researching and taking into account the relevant suggestions from all parties and pressing ahead with further revisions of the Draft. This measure would further reduce the number of administrative licences and regularize market access.

50 G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.134. 51 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.194 and G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.139. 52 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 534 (under dates raised and references). 53 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.119.

G/TBT/M/78

- 23 -

European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation) G/TBT/N/EU/629 (IMS ID 53954)

The representatives of the Russian Federation, the United States, the Philippines and Australia raised concerns with this measure. The full statements are contained in G/TBT/W/666, G/TBT/W/673, G/TBT/W/678 and G/TBT/W/645.

The representative of Japan shared others' concerns on the EU's titanium dioxide regulation.

In the EU's 14th adaptation to technical and scientific progress (ATP) proposal of the CLP regulation, the provisions for titanium dioxide and mixtures containing titanium dioxide were of concern. In particular, the proposed draft regulation classified the powder mixtures containing 1% or more of titanium dioxide as a carcinogen regardless of whether or not exposure of titanium dioxide by inhalation could occur. This could inappropriately broaden the scope of products to be regulated. Labelling requirements could even affect products containing titanium dioxide with low inhalation

risk such as toner cartridges. In addition, those products had not been classified as a carcinogen in other countries' systems along with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). The EU was requested to reconsider the classification criteria in order to limit the scope to products where titanium dioxide inhalation exposure risk existed. Japan also asked that the EU ensure that the regulation would not be more trade-restrictive than necessary.

The representative of Canada supported the points raised by other delegations. Canada felt it was necessary to reiterate its concerns with regard to the potential impact of the measure on the

trade in products containing titanium dioxide or cobalt and the process followed by the EU in arriving at the proposed changes to the CLP regulation. He referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.55 Canada invited the EU to explain how the huge range of products containing titanium dioxide or cobalt would be treated over the whole of the EU's regulatory framework if the proposal was implemented. He also requested that the EU provide further details on the next stages. Canada remained open to participating in any bilateral discussions on this issue.

The representative of New Zealand said that New Zealand acknowledged and supported the

right of all WTO Members to regulate to achieve legitimate health objectives. However, any regulation to address concerns about the possible carcinogenicity of titanium dioxide must be proportionate and not unduly restrict trade in goods containing titanium dioxide. He invited the EU to explain how it had ensured that the draft regulation was helping to achieve the EU's environmental and human health protection objectives, whilst not being more trade restrictive than necessary. He also asked whether the European Union had considered less trade-restrictive alternatives and, if so,

on what basis it had been decided not to adopt such alternatives.

The representative of Mexico thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting. She referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.56 Mexico would continue to follow the development of the regulation and requested that the EU provide an update on the status of this regulation subsequent to the public hearing carried out.

The representative of the European Union responded to the concerns raised. The full

statement is contained in G/TBT/W/657.

Brazil — Draft Technical Resolution n° 51, 7 April 2017 on labelling of beverages, wine, and grape derivatives (IMS ID 55757)

The representative of the European Union referred the Committee to written comments sent on 16 August 2017 on the notification G/TBT/N/BRA/719 on labelling of wine and other beverages and to its statements in the past TBT Committees for details of EU concerns. She stressed the importance of clear and proportional requirements on labelling for European wine and spirits producers exporting to Brazil and requested that Brazil clarify the relation of the draft to other

regulations, including general rules on consumer protection and specific regulations on wine, which seemed to partly overlap. The EU also encouraged Brazil to apply to the greatest possible extent the international standards adopted by the OIV, for example on different expressions for the alcohol

54 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 539 (under dates raised and references). 55 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.76. 56 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.74 and G/TBT/W/619. 57 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 557 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 24 -

content. At the March meeting, Brazil had informed the TBT Committee that the draft was under revision and would be subject to a new public consultation. She asked when this public consultation was expected, that Brazil notify the new draft, and that EU concerns during the preparations of the new draft be taken into account. Finally, she requested that Brazil reply to the EU written comments.

The representative of Brazil informed the Committee that the process of drafting Technical Regulation No. 51 was still in progress. Since the publication of the first draft the original timeline

had been adjusted. He stressed that the original text had been substantially improved. Brazil was currently not able to provide replies to the comments submitted by the EU. The new consultations and the public hearing had been rescheduled but there was not yet a timeframe for their publication. He assured interested parties that they would be able to express their views on the draft regulation.

Israel — Addendum to the Pharmacist Regulations (Cosmetics 5778-2018), G/TBT/N/ISR/709/Add.2 (IMS ID 55258)

The representative of the Republic of Korea reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.59

The representative of Israel referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.60 Israel was in the process of aligning its cosmetics regulations with international best practice in order to facilitate international trade. All the comments received were being considered during the regulatory process. The status of the regulations remained unchanged since the March meeting of the TBT Committee. Due to government elections in

September, the Israeli parliament was limited, in terms of its legal power to enact or amend laws and was therefore not in a position to indicate when the regulations might be finalized.

European Union — Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules and procedures for compliance with and enforcement of Union harmonization legislation on products and amending relevant regulations (IMS ID 56561)

The representative of China raised concerns with the measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/652.

The representative of the United States said her delegation shared China's concerns on this measure.

The representative of the European Union emphasized the importance of safety and compliance of products for consumers. Therefore, public authorities in EU member States had to be able to check that the products on their home market were safe for their citizens. Market surveillance authorities in the EU faced some difficulties in checking compliance of goods originating outside the

EU. Therefore, the EU proposal for a Regulation contained a requirement that there should be a person in the EU responsible for compliance information on products. The European Union recalled that this was not a completely new approach. A significant number of EU laws on products had

similar provisions but they were no longer fit for purpose due to new types of e-commerce supply chains. With the increase in E-commerce, the EU needed to update its legal framework accordingly in order to protect EU consumers. The Regulation had been adopted on 14 June 2019, with a number of changes, and would be notified accordingly to the Committee.

On the provision for an interlocutor in the EU, the main change was on the product scope. It only applied to 18 EU laws on products, instead of 66 as foreseen in the initial proposal and it would apply to product categories such as electronic and electrical equipment, machinery and toys. The final Regulation provided flexibility on the interlocutor of manufacturers vis-à-vis market surveillance authorities. Manufacturers could appoint a representative or use a fulfilment centre in the EU. The interlocutor would have to provide information to the authorities on request and cooperate with them, but it would not be liable for non-compliance of the product. This would

58 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 552 (under dates raised and references). 59 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.83. 60 G/TBT/M/77, paras. 3.84-3.85. 61 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 565 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 25 -

continue to fall on the manufacturer in accordance with the current applicable regulatory framework in the EU.

In order to protect consumers, this requirement applied to all sellers, regardless of how many products they sold. However, the Regulation clarified that for offers for sales online, it would only apply if sales were targeted at EU end-users. He said the Regulation would be published during the summer. It would apply as of mid-2021 to give enough time to implement the new requirement

for products where there was not yet such an interlocutor in the EU. The Commission would issue guidance for the implementation of this provision in 2020.

Dominican Republic - Regulation on Cosmetic and Hygiene Products (IMS ID 56962)

The representative of Mexico raised concerns with the draft regulation on cosmetic and

hygiene products, issued by the Dominican Ministry of Public Health, which had not been notified to

the WTO, and referred to Mexico's first statement on this matter during the November 2018 TBT Committee meeting.63 A fresh public consultation had been carried out by the Dominican Republic following the that meeting, during which Mexican industry had submitted comments. Mexico was still awaiting news on the status of the new draft and how comments were being taken into account. Subsequently she listed Mexico's main concerns:

a. The broad scope of the measure, including i.e. medicines, cosmetics, and cleaning and personal hygiene products, could lead to confusion with respect to compliance and

implementation.

b. The importance of including clear and specific notification requirements for each of the categories covered by the regulation (e.g. cosmetic, personal hygiene and household products) to make satisfactory compliance possible.

c. The risk level with which cosmetic products were catalogued at international level should enable adoption of a system under which prior marketing authorization was not required or, failing that, only a single notification or automatic registration prior to marketing would

be required. Such a Health Notification/Automatic Health Registration System enabled focussing resources on product verification and facilitating detection of products that were counterfeit, illegal or substandard or might harm health of consumer.

d. The requirement for a free sale certificate, a document recognized as guaranteeing compliance with health regulations or with the standards applicable at origin. This had been eliminated in Latin American countries through decisions taken by trading blocks, in

particular the Andean Community, the Pacific Alliance and the Southern Common Market.

e. Submitting a good manufacturing practices (GMP) certificate should not be a requirement for obtaining authorization to market products. The practice at international level was to

require compliance with international GMP standards but certification or endorsement was not demanded. Safety of these products types could be guaranteed by market vigilance, without prejudice to the powers of the health authorities to carry out inspections in i.e. production plants, warehouses to ensure compliance with the required hygienic, technical

and quality control conditions.

In the light of the above, Dominican Republic was requested:

a. To give status details on the issuing of this draft technical regulation and indicate whether authorities involved would continue to amend it.

b. If intended to continue with this draft, to notify the new version of the measure together with the date of entry into force, if known.

62 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 569 (under dates raised and references). 63 G/TBT/M/76, paras. 3.17 and 3.18.

G/TBT/M/78

- 26 -

c. To respond to comments, especially those submitted by the Mexican private sector in February 2019.

d. That the Committee's transparency principle be applied, and that Members be notified of drafts to ensure greater clarity with regard to the public consultation processes.

The representative of El Salvador expressed concern that the measure had not been notified to the WTO. El Salvador had thus not known the substance of the regulation nor had the opportunity

to provide comments. El Salvador was analysing the possible impact on its exports and would follow developments closely.

The representative of the Dominican Republic took note of the statements and the requests made by Mexico. At the November 2018 TBT Committee meeting, Dominican Republic had indicated that the measure would be notified once the domestic consultation procedures were over. Queries

raised at the meeting would be sent to the relevant authorities in capital so they could provide a

timely response. The Dominican Republic was available to clarify any misgivings about these issues.

Chile - Regulations on the classification, labelling and notification of chemical substances and mixtures, G/TBT/N/CHL/422 (IMS ID 57064)

The representative of Mexico raised concerns with the draft regulations notified on 13 November 2017 in document G/TBT/N/CHL/422. The draft regulations established criteria for the classification, labelling, notification and risk assessment of hazardous substances and mixtures with which manufacturers and importers must comply in order to protect human health and the

environment. The objective was to implement the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).

Mexico had expressed concern regarding the draft regulations at the meeting of the TBT Committee in November 2018.65 Mexican industry had participated in the public consultation and

feedback had already been received from the Chilean authorities on the issues raised. Mexico remained concerned regarding the interpretation of the classification of consumer products/final products as hazardous, the proposal for labelling final products with hazard pictograms and the short

time frames for the implementation of this measure.

Mexico had not yet received the latest version of the draft regulations or any information on the possible publication or implementation date. In addition, there had been no information exchange with third parties. It was understood that discussions had been held with local chemical industry, but final product manufacturers had not been involved in the discussion which in Mexico's view, they should have been.

In light of this, Mexico requested Chile to: provide an update on the status of the new draft of these technical regulations (for example, the amended document, the publication or implementation dates), and confirm whether this new draft would be notified; and, analyse the

feasibility of involving final product manufacturers in the working groups participating in the drafting of these technical regulations.

The representative of Chile responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/648.

China — Requirements for information security products, including, inter alia, the Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) 1999 Regulation on commercial encryption products and its on-going revision and the Multi-Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) (IMS ID 29466)

The representative of Japan continued to have concerns regarding China's "Regulation on the Administration of Commercial Cipher Codes" and "Cyber Security Multi-Level Protection

64 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 570 (under dates raised and references). 65 G/TBT/M/76, paras. 3.22-3.24. 66 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 294 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 27 -

Scheme." She referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting67 and requested that China provide relevant information regarding the revision process and that the regulations be implemented transparently.

The representative of the European Union said that the EU maintained concerns as regards the importance of clarifying the implications of the adoption and entry into force of China's new Cybersecurity Law for the existing rules, notably the Multi Level Protection Scheme ('MLPS') and

referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.68

The representative of Australia reiterated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings.69

The representative of China repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.70

Indonesia — Halal Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014 (IMS ID 50271)

The representative of the United States said that while the US recognized the importance for Indonesian consumers to know whether products were halal, it was also important to ensure that the law as implemented achieved this objective without creating any unnecessary barriers to trade. The US understood that Indonesia had finalized and issued the Provisions of the Implementation of Law Number 33 Year 2013 Regarding Halal Product Assurance and expected to issue further implementing regulations regarding the Halal Law. She expressed disappointment that Indonesia had not notified this measure prior to its finalization and strongly urged the notification of all further

implementing regulations prior to finalization to provide adequate time and opportunity for comments from stakeholders, and for comments to be considered. She requested that Indonesia provide enough transition time for stakeholders to understand and comply with the requirements in these regulations.

She asked Indonesia to confirm that the implementing regulation on "Phasing of Halal Certified Products" would allow for phased implementation of mandatory halal certification requirements per "further Ministerial Regulation", and that Indonesia would continue to allow the

sale of non-certified products. She also requested additional information about when halal certification requirements would be applied to non-food and beverage products (including personal care products, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals) and when the "further Ministerial Regulations" would be released.

She thanked Indonesia for extending the recognition of foreign halal certification bodies so that halal-certified agricultural products entering Indonesia could continue uninterrupted during this

transition time. She requested clear guidance from the government agency responsible for halal certification during the transition and phased implementation, along with clear guidance on how foreign certification bodies could apply for continued recognition once their current recognition period expired.

The mandatory requirement that both "halal" and "non-halal" products be labelled remained a concern for the US. Mandating labels for both halal and non-halal information would create confusion for consumers and be costly and challenging for companies, both foreign and domestic,

to implement. Registration requirements for foreign halal certificates included in the implementing regulations as currently written was cumbersome, duplicative, and had the effect of restricting trade for importers and it was not clear how the same registration requirements would apply to local products. The US requested that Indonesia modify this registration requirement to reflect the fact

67 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.141 and G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.40. 68 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.142 and G/TBT/W/633. 69 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.143, G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.43; G/TBT/M/75, para. 4.47; G/TBT/M/74, para.

2.68; G/TBT/M/73, para. 2.22; G/TBT/M/72, para. 3.75; G/TBT/M/71, para. 2.162; and G/TBT/M/71, para. 2.175.

70 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.144. 71 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 502 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 28 -

that Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Agency ("BPJPH") would already be conducting verifications of foreign halal agencies issuing halal certificates for imported goods.

The representative of the European Union continued to raise concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/658.

The representative of Brazil reiterated the concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings72 and requested Indonesia to provide an update on any recent developments and internal

discussions and on the intention to notify this measure to the TBT Committee. He also reiterated Brazil's interest in participating in any future public consultation regarding this issue.

The representative of New Zealand requested an update regarding the implementation of the Mandatory Halal Law Number 33 Year 2014 and a clear explanation of the timeframe for implementation of the Law, and in particular on the phased implementation of mandatory

certification for different products. New Zealand welcomed the recently released Government

Regulation No. 31 2019 which gave more detail on the functioning of the Product Halal Assurance Organizing Agency (BPJPH). He understood further implementing regulations were being drafted and looked forward to those being published in time to give businesses certainty of their operations upon implementation. He requested further information on the timeframe for the transition of responsibilities to Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Organizing Agency (BPJPH) and the steps taken to ensure continued recognition of foreign halal certification. Any clarification Indonesia could provide in addition to Government Regulation 31 2019 on the status of non-halal products was

welcome, specifically on the scope of this term and how labelling requirements would be managed.

The representative of Australia said it was understood that Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Law No.33 of 2014 would take effect from 17 October 2019, with a likely phased implementation period of between five to seven years. He thanked Indonesia for including Australia in the recent Halal Law socialization event held by the Japanese External Trade Organization. However, Australia was disappointed that Indonesia had not circulated the final draft to trading

partners for comment prior to finalization, given the broad scope and potential impact on traded

commodities and services. The short implementation period was also of concern, given many of the implementation regulations had not been circulated for comment. He requested that Indonesia confirm when they would be circulated for comment and requested further guidance on Indonesia's timeframe for implementation of the Halal Law requirements for different products and services. Australia encouraged Indonesia to ensure an open dialogue with trading partners to allow foreign businesses and their valued Indonesian importers to remain adequately informed of new

requirements under the Halal Law.

The representative of Canada said her delegation supported the concerns raised by other WTO Members and reiterated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings.73 In particular, Canada encouraged Indonesia to share the most recent version of the Halal Law with WTO Members prior to it being implemented and finalized. This would allow trading partners to provide feedback on the measure and maximize the time leading up to its implementation to prepare and adjust to the proposed changes. The scope of the measure also remained unclear. Canada was interested in

obtaining additional information on whether products such as grains, oilseeds or fruits and vegetables would automatically be considered halal. Finally, Canada requested further details regarding the process and requirements by which foreign halal certifying bodies could secure halal recognition with Indonesia's Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH).

The representative of Indonesia repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.74 At this meeting she added that Indonesia would not curb its market for products that contained non-halal ingredients. Products that contained non-halal ingredients could

still be put on the Indonesian market by including non-halal information complying with the regulation of The Head of National Agency for Drug and Food Control Republic of Indonesia No. HK.03.1.23.06.10.5166 Year 2010 concerning inclusion of the Information on Particular Substances, Alcohol Content and Expired Date on The Label of Drug/Medicine, Traditional Medicines, Complementary Medicines, and Food.

72 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.104 and G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.11. 73 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.107. 74 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.108-3.109.

G/TBT/M/78

- 29 -

China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for the Cybersecurity Review of Network Products and Services (IMS ID 53375)

The representative of Japan said it was her delegation's understanding that the Cyber Security Review Measures which were subject to public comment would supersede the Network Product and Services Security Review Measures. This proposed measure had unclear articles regarding definitions of terms, concrete requirements for review and evaluation, and the scope of

regulations. Japan had concerns that the measures might hamper market access for foreign companies and cause leaking of confidential technology information, depending on the concrete details of rules governing its implementation. Therefore, China was requested to implement the measure in a non-discriminatory and least trade-restrictive manner, in line with the TBT Agreement. She asked that China clarify the definitions of terms, concrete requirements for review and evaluation, and the scope of regulations, and ensure transparency. The relevant regulations and

procedures should be consistent with international standards and practices. China should also ensure

that these measures take into account the comments and concerns raised by Japan and other Members.

The representative of the European Union recalled that the EU had stressed concerns related to drafts of the Security Review of Network Products and Services, including the Cybersecurity review committee on several occasions. Notably, the measures were quite general and very broad discretionary powers were left to the authorities in charge of the security review, raising concerns

for foreign ICT operators. The EU urged China to ensure the clarity, transparency and objectiveness of the security review. While the EU had not received replies to earlier comments on the draft, she noted that on 24 May 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) had released the Cybersecurity Review Measures (Draft for Comments) for public consultation, with an official deadline of 24 June. This draft was currently being analysed but the EU did have some initial thoughts on the basis of the concerns expressed previously:

a. The draft seemed to broaden the triggers and scope of cybersecurity review. Instead of

waiting for the cybersecurity review by a relevant government authority, as was current practice, operators would be obliged to conduct a preliminary risk assessment and compile a report when purchasing network products and services, and then apply for cybersecurity review under four circumstances – some of the elements appeared to be quite wide in scope and open-ended.

b. Instead of being a one-off review, the cybersecurity review would be accompanied by post-

market supervision measures in the form of spot inspections and tip-offs (Article 16), thereby having a continuous impact on those falling under the draft's scope of application.

c. The non-technical factors among the cybersecurity review appeared to have more focus compared to the earlier draft. The EU was interested in understanding how China planned to assess these factors, bearing in mind the importance of predictability to the business sector. There were also economic and industrial development considerations, as demonstrated in the draft's Article 3, which included the promotion of advanced technology

among the cybersecurity review's many purposes.

d. The EU sought further information on how the cybersecurity review would validate new contracts. The draft appeared to make the cybersecurity review a market access condition, to a certain extent. For network product and service procurement activities that needed to undergo the cybersecurity review, the CII operators should specify, in the procurement documents or the contracts, or via other binding means, the obligation of the product and service providers to cooperate with the cybersecurity review, and that contracts should

only take effect after the cybersecurity review was passed (Article 7).

The EU requested that clarification to these questions be provided by China in order to ensure the EU had the correct reading of the situation.

The representative of Canada said that Canada was also carefully reviewing the

cybersecurity review measures published on 24 May 2019 and that comments would be provided by

75 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 533 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 30 -

the 24 June deadline. Canada urged China to ensure that the measure clearly showed that imported products would receive no less favourable treatment than like products, of national origin or originating in any other country. He encouraged China to notify the new draft cybersecurity measure.

The representative of China informed the Committee that the measures for security review of network products and services had been released in May 2017, establishing the review mechanism of cyber security so as to improve the secure and controllable level of network products and services,

prevent the security risk of the supply chain, safeguard national cyber security and protect people's interests. The system was also conducive to increasing consumer confidence in IT products and services.

Not all the products and services were required to be reviewed, and the focus was on those which could affect national security applied in critical information infrastructures and important information systems. The security review would not violate companies' intellectual property rights

and China always attached great importance to IPR legal protection. Great efforts had been made to severely crack down on the violation of the enterprise IPR in any form. The review would not damage commercial secrets or IPR. Domestic companies were treated equally to foreign companies and the review could help increase consumer confidence in the products and expand the market for enterprises.

European Union — Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable Energy Directive (IMS ID 55376)

The representatives of Malaysia, Colombia, Indonesia and Ecuador continued to raise concerns with this measure. The full statements are contained in documents G/TBT/W/665, G/TBT/W/663, G/TBT/W/641 and G/TBT/W/650, respectively.

The representative of Costa Rica reiterated his delegation's support for the concerns raised by preceding speakers. In particular, Costa Rica was concerned about the criteria proposed for the

determination of indirect change in the use of the soil, and the certification of a low risk of indirect change in the use of the soil in relation with biofuels. As pointed out at previous meetings of the TBT

Committee, Costa Rica was a pioneering country committed to the protection of the environment. It was one of the few countries that had been capable not only of reforesting but also of reversing the trend to deforestation. Today Costa Rica had one of the few decarbonized electricity systems in the world: in 2017 some 99.5% of Costa Rica's electricity had been generated without using fossil fuels – the highest percentage in 30 years. Costa Rica applauded the efforts of the EU to establish an effective policy for the use of renewable energy sources. Nevertheless, these efforts could not be

detrimental to product marketing conditions on the basis of criteria that lack scientific foundation. Costa Rica trusted that European authorities would be able to recognize the special nature of palm oil cultivation in Costa Rica and other areas of Latin America.

The representative of Thailand stressed the need for fair and equitable treatment of palm oil compared to other oil crops. Thailand appreciated the EU's updates and welcomed their efforts to develop a more appropriate policy on renewable energy that would be more concurrent to WTO

obligations.

The representative of Guatemala supported concerns raised by other Members and referred the Committee to statements delivered at previous TBT Committee meetings.

The representative of the European Union thanked various members for raising this issue and noted that the revision of the REDII (Renewable Energy Directive) had also been discussed in a number of bilateral meetings among experts. The European Union had an ambitious energy and climate policy framework, in line with its international commitments (Sustainable Development Goals, Paris Agreement) and as an essential step to achieve its decarbonisation by 2050. The REDII,

adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in December 2018, was an important element of this policy. The revised REDII had been officially published on 21 December 2018, and the Delegated Act on 21 May 2019. These provided further clarity on the issues raised. Notably, the REDII included measures to promote the sustainability of conventional biofuels and set rules on the

extent to which such biofuels could contribute towards the EU targets for renewable energy. In this

76 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 553 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 31 -

sense, it was recalled that the REDII did not regulate their access to the EU market. The Delegated Act specified objective criteria for the implementation of these rules, namely on (i) determining high ILUC-risk feedstocks and (ii) certifying low ILUC-risk biofuels. The EU would continue to review the relevant scientific data to ensure that the implementation of these rules remained up-to-date and based on the latest available scientific evidence. A first updated assessment was foreseen by mid-2021, before the end of the period for member States to transpose the REDII into their domestic

legislation. Only after the end of the transposition period would the REDII – and the criteria on high and low ILUC risk – have to be applied.

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Technical Regulation for plastic products OXO – biodegradable, G/TBT/N/SAU/947 (IMS ID 58377)

The representative of the United States recognised the decision to delay implementation for phases two and three of this regulation until 1 September 2019 while Saudi Arabia conducted and

evaluated environmental and economic impact assessments of this regulation and considered on-going stakeholder comments. The US noted concerns with the effectiveness of oxo-biodegradable plastics in achieving Saudi Arabia's environmental and consumer protection objectives under this regulation. Specifically, oxo-biodegradable plastics disrupted recycling operations and could create new environmental hazards such as microplastics in the soil and the aquatic environment, even in Saudi Arabia's climate.

The current regulation lacked clarity on whether certain plastic product packaging or shipping

materials were exempt from the regulation's requirements. While assurance had been provided verbally that plastic in contact with food was exempt, she asked that this be documented in the regulation. The additive required to make plastics oxo-biodegradable was commercially rare, with only one facility in Europe and none in the Western hemisphere. If there was only a limited number of product exemptions, this would lead to supply chain disruptions and difficulties in exporting products to Saudi Arabia.

The US continued to have specific questions and concerns regarding the technical regulation

and supported the exchange of information and technical expertise between the US and Saudi Arabia on waste management, recycling, and the impact of oxo-biodegradable plastics on recycling programs and the environment at large. She requested that Saudi Arabia re-notify the regulation with the amended version so that the final regulation was clear, addressed stakeholder comments, and provided an adequate transition period for compliance.

The representative of the European Union reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT

Committee meeting.78 She also informed the Committee that EU co-legislators had adopted on 5 June 2019 the Directive on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, to be implemented by the EU member States within two years after its entry into force. The Directive required member States to prohibit the placing on the market of products made from oxo-degradable plastics.

The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia informed the Committee that Saudi

Arabia had conducted a national study to investigate the impact of oxo biodegradable on the

environment taking into account the climatic conditions, a national study and recommendations along with Members' comments. The Saudi Standards Authority would meet on this by the end of August. Saudi Arabia was willing to hold further discussions with any interested delegations.

77 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 583 (under dates raised and references). 78 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.53 and G/TBT/W/626.

G/TBT/M/78

- 32 -

India — New Telecommunications related Rules (Department of Telecommunications, No. 842-725/2005-VAS/Vol.III (3 December 2009); No. 10-15/2009-AS-III/193 (18 March 2010); and Nos. 10-15/2009-AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(25-29) (28 July 2010); Department of Telecommunications, No. 10-15/2009-AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) and accompanying template, "Security and Business Continuity Agreement") (IMS ID 27479)

The representative of the United States referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.80

The representative of the European Union recognized the clarification provided by India at previous TBT Committee meetings. Referring to several Indian notifications specifying products for which in-country testing and certification would be required, she stressed the need to allow for adequate time for affected stakeholders to review final requirements and asked India to confirm that

the date of entry into force of the testing requirements would remain 1 August 2019 for all types of equipment. She reiterated the concern that mandatory in-country testing meant duplication of testing and certification undertaken by well-established mechanisms around the world, and particularly in the EU. She pointed to a visit of a delegation of the Indian Department of Telecom to discuss possible recognition instead of in-country testing and expressed hope to build on these discussions.

The representative of Japan expressed support for the positions of the United States and the

EU and uttered its concerns related to the Unified Access Service Licence Agreement. She requested that India ensure that the country's telecom regulations did not impede market access for foreign industries and reiterated Japan's request that the regulations be implemented in a transparent manner in terms of testing methods and certification requirements.

The representative of Canada supported the comments made by other delegations and expressed continued concerns about India's in-country testing requirements for telecommunications

equipment, which might hinder access to, or exclusion from, the Indian market. The representative

asked India to confirm its intention to apply the requirements as of August 2019 and urged India to recognize foreign CABs to test and certify to India's regulatory requirements, minimizing the negative impact on exporters.

The representative of India repeated the statement provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.81 He informed the Committee that the implementation date for the new rules had been extended to 1 August 2019 by TECT for telecom products and stated that he would forward to capital

the concern regarding allowing adequate time before entry into force of the measure.

Russian Federation — Draft Technical Regulation on Alcohol Drinks Safety (published on 24 October 2011), G/TBT/N/RUS/2 (IMS ID 33282)

The representative of the European Union repeated many of the concerns raised at the

previous TBT Committee meeting and contained in G/TBT/W/634. The impact on geographical indications was of serious concern to the EU. On mandatory labelling requirements, Russia was invited to refer to the international standard CODEX STAN 1-1985, point 4.7, as regards the

indication of date markings and storage conditions, which were strictly linked to each other. The EU was also concerned by the requirement of a double labelling in Russian and/or another EAEU language, leading to an additional cost burden. This regulation contained a rule where alcoholic beverages must prove conformity in order to be marketed in the EAEU territory. The conformity assessment was conducted by a state entity and covered a wide range of requirements such as documentation and laboratory analysis. This represented a disproportionate burden and cost for producers. The EU requested clarification on how the conformity procedure would apply to imported

products and whether EU accompanying documents would be considered as sufficient to establish the compliance of EU products with the notified technical regulation.

79 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 274 (under dates raised and references). 80 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.137. 81 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.140 and G/TBT/W/621. 82 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 332 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 33 -

The representative of the Russian Federation informed the Committee that the Technical Regulation of the Eurasian Economic Union on Safety of alcohol beverages had been adopted on 5 December 2018 and would enter into force on 9 January 2021. Such a lengthy grace period would provide ample opportunities for business to adapt to the new regulation. To implement the Technical Regulation, the Eurasian Economic Commission had adopted a decision no. 61 dated 6 April 2019 setting out transitional provisions where it provided that the documents on conformity assessment

issued before the entry into force of the technical regulation would continue to be valid until their expiration, but not later than 9 January 2024.

On geographical indications, Russia noted that the legislation in force did not prohibit the use of the designations "cognac", "calvados" and "champagne". This had been emphasized many times during meetings with the EU and France. In Russia, these designations transformed into generic names and were not associated with the geographical indications due to the long history of

the use of these terms in the USSR and even before. Under the arrangements between the Russian

Federation and France the designations "cognac", "champagne" and "calvados", written in Cyrillic characters, could refer to products produced in Russia that were marketed domestically. This provision was included in the Technical Regulation on Safety of alcohol beverages under the Chapter 8 "Requirements for labeling of alcohol beverages". It provided that only beverages originating from respective areas in France could bear label "cognac", "champagne" and "calvados" in Roman characters, while products produced in Russia for domestic consumption could bear labels in Cyrillic

characters. Moreover, EU producers were welcome to register their geographical indications in the Federal Service for Intellectual Property.

In response to the EU question, the list of documents required for the conformity assessment procedures was available in paragraphs 47-49 of the Technical Regulation. On labelling requirements, common labelling requirements set out in the Technical Regulation of the Eurasian Economic Union were based on the relevant standard of the Codex Alimentarius Commission 1-1985. Requirements such as alcohol content or storage conditions were introduced for consumer safety

and to ensure that adult consumers made informed choices. He noted that discussions were currently

ongoing in the Codex Alimentarius Commission on the labelling of alcohol products since many countries found that applicable standards lacked clarity for alcohol products. The approach to labelling employed by the Technical Regulation of the Eurasian Economic Union was not something new as the same requirements for alcohol labelling were currently applied in Russia.

The representative of Kazakhstan supported the statement made by the Russian Federation.

Its adoption in September 2018 with entry into force in January 2021 gave importers ample time to prepare for the necessary requirements. The objective was to protect consumers and Kazakhstan did not consider it to be an unnecessary obstacle to trade. As the new technical regulation was based on the current requirements of the Eurasian Economic Union member states, this technical regulation would not have a restrictive effect on trade. He noted that the measure would be applied equally to third countries and products produced in the territory of the Eurasian Economic Union.

India — Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for

Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012, G/TBT/N/IND/44, G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.1,

G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.2, G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.3, G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.6, G/TBT/N/IND/47, G/TBT/N/IND/58 (IMS ID 36783)

The representatives of the United States84, Canada85 and the European Union86 referred the Committee to statements delivered at previous TBT Committee meetings.

The representative of India repeated the responses provided at previous TBT Committee meetings and circulated in G/TBT/W/583 and G/TBT/W/622.

83 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 367 (under dates raised and references). 84 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.148, G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.59; G/TBT/M/75, para. 4.67; and G/TBT/M/74,

para. 2.89. 85 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.149 and G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.60. 86 G/TBT/W/484.

G/TBT/M/78

- 34 -

European Union — Hazard-based approach to plant protection products and setting of import tolerances G/TBT/N/EU/383, G/TBT/N/EU/384, G/SPS/N/EU/166 (IMS ID 39387)

The representative of the United States recalled its position on endocrine disruptors, expressed at previous TBT Committee meetings. The US was disappointed that the EU had proceeded with implementing the regulations despite numerous interventions by WTO Members - 11 Members

at the previous TBT Committee meeting. The United States had ongoing concerns with the EU's hazard-based approach to pesticide regulation, and its implementation of criteria for identifying and subsequently banning endocrine-active substances. Simply identifying hazards without identifying ascertainable risks or considering reasonable methods for managing risk raised concerns that the EU's regulatory approach could be more trade restrictive than necessary. The hazard cut-offs unnecessarily restricted access to crop protection tools that would be deemed safe under a system

honouring risk assessments and risk management processes. They further restricted trade by

feeding into the EU's MRL decisions, which should rather be based on comprehensive risk assessment.

The EU had stated that import tolerances would be granted on a case-by-case basis, factoring in "all relevant factors". However, the US remained troubled by the EU's opaque process for managing import tolerances for substances that triggered the hazard-based cut-off criteria. Despite its insistence that import tolerances would be "in line with risk analysis principles", the EU's

case-by-case approach did not seem to examine the circumstances relevant to each substance, as would be the case in a true risk-based approach. This approach caused considerable uncertainty for applicants and producers and caused significant delays in the issuance of import tolerances, or no tolerance at all, while effectively halting trade without clear reasons. In this way, the hazard criteria served as barriers to trade.

If the EU was interested in addressing the concerns raised by Members, it needed to clarify the following: what the relevant factors were, how these factors related to safeguarding human

health and the environment, what was the length anticipated for the process, and how producers could effectively utilize the process. She again reminded the EU that other less trade-restrictive regulatory approaches existed that provided high levels of human health and environmental protection, without posing unnecessary barriers to trade. To that end, she stressed the importance of the EU's approach comporting with the principles of sound science, non-discrimination, transparency, and predictability in the implementation of TBT measures.

The representative of Canada raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/644.

The representative of Paraguay joined the concerns raised by others. As said previously in both in the TBT and SPS Committees, the use of this hazard-based approach for active substances would create unnecessary barriers to trade and would have a negative impact on producers. Paraguay noted the significant economic impact in particular on small producers who were subsistence farmers.

The representative of Panama expressed concern with these measures which went beyond international standards and had an unnecessary impact on international trade. He recalled that most tropical countries had very different climatic characteristics to European countries and many of the substances were essential for protecting foodstuffs. Panama called upon the EU to consider the impact of the measures on social wellbeing, particularly in the most vulnerable populations who produced agricultural products. He thanked the EU for establishing a dialogue and hoped that measures could be implemented without any unnecessary impact on trade.

The representative of Brazil reiterated the concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings.88

87 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 393 (under dates raised and references). 88 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.156; G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.67.

G/TBT/M/78

- 35 -

The representative of Costa Rica reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.89

The representative of Colombia supported the concerns raised by other Members. Colombia preferred a risk identification approach rather than a hazard-based approach, as well as a management and communication assessment. In pesticide use, Colombia was seeing a negative impact on the use of low risk products as under these conditions they could be defined under this

hazard-based approach without any scientific evidence. Colombia was of the view that the EU proposal should take into account scientific evidence, methods and production processes, international standards in Codex, ecological and environmental criteria in the countries that may be impacted by the measure and thereby avoid any unnecessary barriers to trade.

The representative of Argentina thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting and the on-going exchanges at a technical level. These had been useful in addressing doubts with the EU approach.

Despite this engagement, Argentina continued to harbour doubts with the practical implementation of import tolerances of active substances which had been impacted by the cut off level under the hazard-based approach in the implementation of the Commission regulation. The requirements for import tolerances were having an impact on the non-renewal of active substances identified as having presented a hazard. He urged the EU to consider the impact this was having and the importance of the EU market for developing countries such as Argentina.

The representative of Australia recalled its position on the importance of adopting a risk-

based approach for regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) rather than considering only the potential for harm due to the intrinsic properties of a chemical. 90 The EU legislation for plant protection products provided that active substances which were endocrine disruptors should not be approved, unless there was negligible exposure in which case they may be approved under restricted conditions. Australia noted that the clause of negligible exposure had been discussed in the Plants, Animals, Food and Feed Standing Committee meeting of 23-24 October 2018, and that no qualified majority had been reached. An update on when these discussions would resume was requested.

The representative of Uruguay once again echoed the remarks made by other Members and reiterated its trade and systemic concern with regard to the increasing use of what was considered to be a risk-based approach by the European Union. This approach did not appear to correspond to a complete scientific assessment of the risks based on validated methodologies, which was the approach Uruguay expected the EU to adopt in phytosanitary matters so as to be in conformity with the commitments undertaken, in order to avoid contributing to an unjustified proliferation of barriers

to international trade in agricultural products.

The representative of Thailand reiterated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings. The EU had developed the regulation setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disruptors based on hazard identification without considering the potency of substance and exposure assessment. Such criteria did not comply with the SPS Agreement, which encouraged Members to establish measures based on the principle of risk assessment. Thailand was concerned that the implementation of this criteria would pose unnecessary restrictions to trade. He asked the

EU to conduct risk assessment before setting the MRLs for substances identified as endocrine disruptors or adopt the existing Codex MRLs for these substances to minimize the adverse impact on trade. Thailand hoped that the EU would take these concerns into account.

The representative of India joined other Members in expressing concern on the EU Regulation on Endocrine Disruptors. India had expressed serious concerns on this Regulation on several occasions including during meeting at Brussels. He reiterated that the measure had significant effects on trade and asked that the EU consider other options such as the risk-based assessment as available

within the WTO SPS framework, rather than a hazard-based approach.

The representative of Ecuador continued to express concern with this measure, above all the uncertainty it generated with respect to future conditions for agricultural products in gaining access to EU markets.

89 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.155. 90 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.162; G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.64.

G/TBT/M/78

- 36 -

The representative of Guatemala supported the concerns raised by other Members.

The representative of the European Union repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.91

India — The Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015, G/TBT/N/IND/50 (IMS ID 48692)

The representative of the European Union reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT

Committee meeting.93

The representative of India responded to the concerns raised by the EU. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/674.

China – Registration Fees for Drugs and Medical Device Products (IMS ID 46694)

The representative of the Republic of Korea reiterated concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.95

The representative of Australia said that her delegation continued to follow developments in China's regulation of drugs and medical devices. She thanked China for the constructive bilateral discussions on a range of health technology topics to date and looked forward to further cooperation and exchanges.

The representative of China repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.96

China — Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal,

G/TBT/N/CHN/1057 (IMS ID 47797)

The representative of Australia recalled its position expressed at the previous TBT Committee meeting.98 As Australian coal continued to face longer processing times at Chinese ports, he asked if China could advise on whether there had been any adjustments in how the measure (originally notified on 18 September 2014) was being implemented. He noted that both China and Australia were signatories to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC MRA) and that under this agreement, coal could be tested prior to leaving

Australian ports.

The representative of China said that Australia had always been an important source of China's coal imports. In 2018, China imported more than 80 million tonnes of Australian coal, which accounted for 29% of total coal imports. The ChAFTA Agreement offered a zero tariff rate favourable treatment for Australian coal. China had not drafted the new rules or regulations relating to commercial coal. Since the Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal came into

force in 2015, both imported coal and domestic coal were treated equally. For inspection, both Chinese and international methods could be adopted. According to China's laws and regulations, the imported goods were subject to the inspection of China's Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau. The statutory inspection could not be replaced by third-party inspection. The goods in bulk needed to be inspected at port of unloading and statutory inspection in the port of entry could not be replaced by pre-shipment inspection.

91 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.164. 92 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 486 (under dates raised and references). 93 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.174 and G/TBT/W/635. 94 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 466 (under dates raised and references). 95 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.169. 96 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.171. 97 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 477 (under dates raised and references). 98 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.172.

G/TBT/M/78

- 37 -

India — Draft Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) Regulations, 2015, G/TBT/N/IND/51 (IMS ID 49499)

The representative of the European Union reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.100 In addition, she informed the Committee that a meeting of the Scientific Panel of FSSAI had taken place on 18 March 2019 to discuss the most important outstanding EU concerns; but most requests had been rejected by India. The EU hoped an acceptable solution to

the outstanding issues could be found so as to allow for the continued entry of certain EU beers and spirits onto the Indian market.

The representative of India repeated detailed statements made at previous TBT Committee meetings. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/675.

China — Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow-up Formula

(IMS ID 493101)

The representative of the United States thanked China for the bilateral meeting on this regulation and noted the continued concerns regarding implementation requirements for the registration of infant formula as noted in previous interventions.

The representative of Switzerland reiterated the concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.102 In addition, he informed the Committee that China had committed itself to fair competition between domestic and overseas enterprises according to China's "Action Plan for the Improvement of Domestic Infants and Young Children Formula Milk Powder". Switzerland very

much welcomed this commitment and the possibility to engage with China to reach a better understanding of some of the measures put forward as part of the Action Plan.

The representative of China informed the Committee that the Food Safety Law stipulated the registration management of formula for infant formula milk powder products. In accordance with

the "Food Safety Law", China had issued the "Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow-up Formula Milk Powder". This contained the requirements for the applicant's research capabilities, production capacity and inspection capabilities, and urged the scientific formulation of formulas for

infant formula milk powder products. Registration management for infant formula was enforced according to the Food Safety Law, and "Formula Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow-up Formula Milk Powder".

Russian Federation – Rules of cement certification, G/TBT/N/RUS/48, G/TBT/N/RUS/49 (IMS ID 497103)

The representative of the European Union referred the Committee to statements delivered

at previous TBT Committee meetings. The EU welcomed the recent announcement by Russian authorities declaring that a new standard on cement certification was currently under preparation and asked what the planned timeline for its adoption and its notification was, and for more detailed

information about its content. Given that since the introduction of the mandatory certification for cement, the EU exports of cement to the Russian Federation had practically been blocked – with the exception of white cement, necessary for Russian industry - the EU was very much interested in following the development of the new standard.

The EU reiterated its request that these measures be suspended as they led to a de facto ban of cement imports of EU origin, and to justify current additional testing processes at the border for each cement batch exported to Russia as this violated the TBT Agreement. She also asked that Russia confirm that the strength test did not have to be performed for certified cement, as this led to blockages at the border.

99 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 494 (under dates raised and references). 100 G/TBT/M/77, paras. 3.176-3.177. 101 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 493 (under dates raised and references). 102 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.182. 103 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 497 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 38 -

The representative of Mexico recalled Mexico's interest in this issue, as had been indicated in several statements made at previous TBT Committee meetings. She requested that Russia update the Committee on any changes in this measure.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that the aim of this measure was to fight illicit trade in cement and to ensure the strength of cement, something of paramount importance for the durability of buildings. Currently, the amendments to GOST-R "Rules of cement certification"

were being discussed internally between relevant Russian authorities. No precise timeline for the outcome of these discussions was available. Members would be kept informed on further developments.

Egypt — Manufacturer Registration System (Decree No. 43/2016 and Decree No. 992/2015), G/TBT/N/EGY/114, G/TBT/N/EGY/115 (IMS ID 505104)

The representatives of the European Union, Brazil and Thailand reiterated statements made

at the previous TBT Committee meeting.105

The representative of the Russian Federation shared the concerns raised by other delegations. The procedure of exporters' registration in Egypt was overly burdensome. Russian exporters that had been trying to register since 2016 and since 2017 were not getting any feedback on the documents sent to Egyptian authorities. In the meantime, producers were not allowed to ship their products to Egypt. Therefore, the system in force in Egypt introduced a de facto ban to the products of these exporters. Russia urged Egypt to review discriminative legislation as well as to

speed up consideration of all pending requests.

The representative of Egypt reiterated its previous explanation that Decree 43 for the year 2016, complemented by Decree 44 for the year 2019, did not aim at restricting trade, an argument that was statistically supported by the fact that the value of Egypt's imports during 2018 had increased by 22% as compared to 2017. Further, the HS chapters containing tariff lines subject to

Decree 43, showed that the imports from these chapters had in fact increased by 30% in 2018 as compared to 2017. In addition, comparing the trade figures of these chapters in 2018 to 2015, which

was the year preceding the entry into force of the mentioned decree, showed an overall increase in some chapters of more than 110%. Regarding the ceramics sector, in which it was highlighted that companies particularly faced problems, Egypt said that its imports from HS chapter 69 had a 28% increase in 2018 as compared to 2017, and an increase of 8% in 2018 as compared to 2015. The rationale of the decision, its purpose, the methodology of its application and its general requirements, did not pose any burden on businesses or trading partners. Nonetheless, in an effort

to respond to the concerns expressed by a number of trading partners, a new committee had been established with the purpose of reviewing all pending applications to facilitate and speed up the registration process. Therefore, Egypt requested that Members with specific problems contact them, so that such problems could be conveyed accordingly to this new committee.

The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu – Draft of the Organic Agriculture Act, G/TBT/N/TPKM/225, G/TBT/N/TPKM/225/Add.1,

G/TBT/N/TPKM/225/Add.2 (IMS ID 511106)

The representative of the European Union thanked Chinese Taipei for its written communication and the bilateral dialogue on the reform of its regulation on organic products. The new Organic Bill had been promulgated on 30 May 2018 and the draft implementing regulations of the new bill notified on 7 January 2019. The EU had submitted comments on the implementing regulations on 14 March 2019, to which Chinese Taipei replied on 22 March 2019. The EU very much regretted that the new Bill allowed only for a transitional period of two years, after which the unilateral recognition of 16 member States would expire. The EU considered that the consequences

for trade partners were disproportionate, and a more flexible transitional arrangement should be considered in the future.

The main concern was how the Organic Bill would be implemented. As the second largest exporter of organic products to Chinese Taipei, the EU needed to be assured that the system was

104 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 505 (under dates raised and references). 105 G/TBT/M/77, paras. 3.184, 3.185 and 3.186, respectively. 106 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 511 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 39 -

effective and would avoid any trade disruptions which would also harm retailers and consumers from Chinese Taipei. In particular, Chinese Taipei was requested to set up a clear information tool as soon as possible so as to allow European operators and Control Bodies to become familiar with the new imports procedures. The European Union requested a rapid and swift recognition of the European Control Bodies by the competent authorities of Chinese Taipei.

The EU also requested that Chinese Taipei recognize European standards for products

coming from the European Union. This was currently not the case since, in practice, compliance with Chinese Taipei standards was still checked, causing tremendous problems for trade and, given the high level of European standards. Chinese Taipei could have full confidence that by respecting the European standards, products from the EU were safe. She said this recognition should extend to all 28 EU Member States as the EU is a single market with a single production standard.

The representative of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu

said that the implementing regulations had been adopted and notified to the WTO. The adopted texts were contained in the addenda to notifications G/TBT/N/TPKM/346, G/TBT/N/TPKM/347, G/TBT/N/TPKM/348, G/TBT/N/TPKM/364, G/TBT/N/TPKM/365, G/TBT/N/TPKM/366, G/TBT/N/TPKM/370 and G/TBT/N/TPKM/371. He assured the EU that his delegation intended to continue to work closely with the EU on this matter.

China — National Standards on Limits of Volatile Organic Compounds for Furniture, G/TBT/N/CHN/1094, G/TBT/N/CHN/1095, G/TBT/N/CHN/1096 (IMS

ID 509107)

The representative of the European Union reiterated the statement made at the previous TBT Committee meeting.108

The representative of China said that these measures had been notified to the WTO in July 2015. In 2016, as part of the six measures of "Deepening the Reform Programme of Standardization

work", China had simplified and integrated all the mandatory standards, including the mandatory standards for the furniture industry. On 14 January 2017, the China National Standardization

Administration Committee had published the conclusion of the simplification and integration of Chinese mandatory standards in the notice "Notification of the issuance of conclusion of the simplifying and integrating of Chinese mandatory standards" (No.4 document of SAC in 2017). The three standards referred to needed to be integrated before they could be released. As a result, these three standards had not yet been published and implemented. The drafting of the integrated standards had begun in 2019 and the "Limit of hazardous substances in furniture" mandatory

standards would be completed within two years. These measures would be notified to the WTO in due course and the EU was welcome to participate in the consultation process.

China — Cybersecurity Law (IMS ID 526109)

The representative of Japan informed the Committee that Japan continued to have concerns

with China's "Cybersecurity Law" that had entered into force on 1 June 2017 and referred to the statement made at the previous TBT Committee meeting.110 Japan would provide comments on "Cyber Security Review Measures", which had recently been subject to public comment and

requested that China take into account those comments. In addition, Japan requested that China provide adequate lead time from completion of the regulations until their enforcement, and to implement these measures in a transparent manner.

The representative of the European Union said that the concerns previously raised regarding the entry into force of the Cybersecurity Law on 1 June 2017 were maintained. She referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.111

107 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 509 (under dates raised and references). 108 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.72. 109 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 526 (under dates raised and references). 110 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.199; G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.153; G/TBT/M/75, para. 4.172 and G/TBT/M/74,

para. 2.196. 111 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.200 and G/TBT/W/637.

G/TBT/M/78

- 40 -

The representative of the United States said that the US remained very concerned about China's suite of cybersecurity and cryptography measures. As stated at previous TBT Committee meetings, this was a major concern for US companies, given China's intertwined requirements for conformity assessment systems for security testing, technical regulations, and a multi-level classification scheme laying out requirements that included mandatory standards and testing for the purchase of ICT goods across a wide range of commercial sectors.

Despite serious and long-standing concerns, China's Cybersecurity Law had entered into force on 1 June 2017. Since then, China continued to develop, and in certain cases, finalize related implementing measures that were sometimes general in scope, and sometimes sector specific. The US had many concerns regarding China's Cybersecurity Law and related measures, which imposed far-reaching, highly trade-restrictive conditions on foreign ICT products through "secure and controllable" requirements, enforced by cybersecurity review regime checks. Such requirements

were largely based on a planned update and expansion of the Ministry of Public Security's Multi-

Level Protection Scheme (MLPS). An example of this was the 25 January 2018 draft measure "Information Security Technology – Guidelines for Grading of Classified Cybersecurity Protection," which appeared to repeat and elaborate upon China's MLPS. Numerous other concerns had been laid out in interventions by the US and other Members at prior TBT Committee meetings.

Additionally, the United States reiterated its serious concerns regarding China's Office of State Commercial Cryptography's (OSCCA) draft Cryptography Law of the People's Republic of China

to which comments had been submitted in May 2017. The US was concerned that this law would codify potentially far-reaching, highly trade-restrictive cryptography-related constraints on foreign ICT products. Because these issues were technically complex and China's approach appeared to be both novel and would have a potentially widespread impact in the commercial sector, the US requested that China undertake in-depth consultations with WTO Members, and global stakeholders.

China was requested to allow subsequent opportunities for interested parties to submit comments on revised iterations of draft standards and all other implementing measures related to

the Cybersecurity Law. Given the broad potential impact of these standards and measures and the serious concerns they had raised, it was critical that China act deliberately to collaborate with all interested parties and take their comments into account before adopting the drafts as written. The US would continue to carefully monitor China's implementation of the Cybersecurity Law and related measures, as well as movement on the draft Cryptography Law, and looked forward to continuing important dialogue with China.

The representative of the Republic of Korea supported the comments made by other delegations. He raised concerns with Article 31 of the law that stipulated the designation of infrastructural facility for core information, and Article 35 that stipulated that the operator of designated core information infrastructural facility should undergo a national security evaluation, when the purchasing network product and services might impact on national security. The specific designation scope and criteria for the core information infrastructural facility had not been established, and the scope and assessment procedure for the national security review of network

products and services were vague. Korea was concerned that this could cause unnecessary abuse

of the regulation, as well as breach of intellectual property rights (IPR).

He requested more clarity on the designation criteria for the core information infrastructure facility and the scope for national security review. He also requested the establishment of a clause forming a procedure that could prevent confidential business information leakage and the liability of compensation. Additionally, Article 37, and sub-regulations 'Measures for Security Assessment of Cross-border Transfer of Personal Information and Important Data' and 'Information Security

Technology – Guidelines for Data Cross-Border Transfer Security Assessment', contained a requirement that if critical information infrastructure operators in China stored personal information and important data in a foreign territory, or provided the information to a foreign individual or organization, the operator would be subject to a national security review by the Chinese Government.

Article 4.4 of the Guidelines for Data Cross-Border Transfer Security Assessment (draft)

stipulated that "transfer of data with high level of safety risks such as personal information and

important data to a foreign territory was prohibited". However, the regulation about the phrase "high level of safety risks" was vague. Therefore, Korea requested China to publish a guideline, which focused on detailed case studies, so that "data with high level of safety risk" information could be

G/TBT/M/78

- 41 -

objectively identify. The final draft of the Cybersecurity Law and relevant sub-regulation and standard was not yet available, so Korean companies were having difficulties in complying with the regulation. He requested that the information regarding the time schedule for the sub-regulation and standard be made available. When the related sub-regulation and standard draft were announced, Korea requested that they be notified to the WTO with a sufficient comment period (60 days or more), so as to give adequate opportunity for foreign stakeholders to comment. At least six

months for adaptation should also be given after publication of final draft.

The representative of Australia reiterated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings.112

The representative of Canada said that in line with STC 22113, Canada was following with interest the developments related to China's Cybersecurity Law. Canada supported the concerns raised by other Members and welcomed any additional and relevant information or clarification that

China could provide.

The representative of China repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.114

European Union — Organic production and labelling - Maté (erva-mate) (IMS ID 524115)

The representative of Brazil thanked the EU for all the clarifications received on this matter. Brazil was raising this STC once again to recall concerns related to the labelling of organic erva-mate

in the EU. Even with the regulatory changes established by the EU Regulation 848/2018, Brazil found that the unjustifiable refusal to provide a transitory solution constituted an unnecessary barrier to trade. As had been stated at previous TBT Committee meetings, not including "erva-mate" in the organic product list without any technical or scientific justification was discriminatory and more trade-restrictive than necessary, and thus inconsistent with the TBT Agreement. Brazilian producers

would be denied access to EU markets on an equitable basis until January 2021 and their losses would not be compensated.

The representative of the European Union noted that it had replied to Brazil on this issue at previous TBT Committee meetings, as well as bilaterally. Erva mate was not within the scope of the current organic Regulation (Regulation (EC) 834/2007) and there was no possibility to modify this. However, the EU noted that, as proposed by the European Commission, the new Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labelling adopted on 30 May 2018 by the European Parliament and the Council included Maté under its scope. The new Regulation would enter into force on

1 January 2021.

112 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.203, G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.157 and G/TBT/M/75, para. 4.175. 113 China — Cyberspace Administration of China – Draft implementing measures for the Cybersecurity

Review of Network Products and Services 114 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.204. 115 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 524 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 42 -

European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - non-renewal of approval of the active substance picoxystrobin G/TBT/N/EU/437 (IMS ID 535116)

The representative of Brazil said that as previously stated, the EU's non-renewal of picoxystrobin was against scientific consensus regarding the safety of the substance and its use in crop protection. Since its first notification in the TBT Committee, in January 2017, Brazil had encouraged the EU to notify the non-renewal of picoxystrobin to the SPS Committee, bearing in

mind that the protection of human and animal health constituted its basic underlying concept. The EU had taken 18 months to finally bring this matter to the attention of the SPS Committee. In January 2019, the EU notified to the SPS Committee the adoption of Regulation 2019/91, establishing very restrictive MRLs for seven substances, including picoxystrobin, as well buprofezin, important substances for Brazil's trade in agricultural commodities. Brazil did not consider that the transitional period of 13 August 2019 given for producers to adapt to the new MRLs to be reasonable,

given that studies conducted by EFSA were inconclusive, not based in due risk-analysis and to the

detriment of CODEX guidelines.

This STC related to a measure notified under the TBT Agreement but that could also fall under the SPS Agreement, bearing in mind its objective. Since 2016, Brazil had identified at least 20 different cases of substances that were not approved or had their registry of approval not renewed by the EU and that were only notified to the TBT Committee. In line with Brazil's presentations at the thematic session on transparency, it was important to reiterate that even when a technical

regulation or conformity assessment procedure could initially just be an administrative procedure, upon revision, it might also be considered as an SPS measure as it met the objectives foreseen in the SPS Agreement. This, he said, would call for simultaneous notification to both agreements. In another situation, where there was a lack of clarity regarding whether a measure should be notified under either the SPS or the TBT Agreements, Brazil's position was that Members should notify both Committees, for the sake of transparency. Brazil believed that based on previous interventions in the TBT Committee, this understanding was also shared by other Members.

The representative of Paraguay reiterated its concern with the EU's decision not to renew the approval of active substance picoxystrobin and referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.117

The representative of Panama expressed continued interest in this issue.

The representative of the European Union repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.118

China — Certification requirements for processed foods, G/TBT/N/CHN/1209 and G/TBT/N/CHN/1209/Add.1 (IMS ID 547119)

The representative of the United States thanked China for its bilateral engagement in 2017 and 2018 on the concerns raised on the official certification requirements for imported foods, and

for its September 2017 announcement notifying WTO Members of the two-year transitional period for enforcement from 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2019. This measure, entitled "Measures for the Administration of Certificates Attached to Foods Exported to China (Draft)" in the TBT

notification, required a range of imported food products to be accompanied by official certificates on a shipment-by-shipment basis, including processed, shelf-stable foods. Given the rapidly approaching implementation date (30 September 2019), and the fact that China had not yet indicated how it would take into account comments received, she asked that China explain how it planned to move forward on this issue. The US reminded China that WTO Members needed adequate lead-time in implementing any new measure, and said the current timeframe was not sufficient. The US was hopeful that a mutually acceptable agreement could be reached on reasonable requirements

for food imports.

The representative of Japan asked that China present detailed information on the certification requirements for processed foods and to provide sufficient scientific evidence and

116 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 535 (under dates raised and references). 117 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.210. 118 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.212; G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.176 and G/TBT/M/75, para. 4.188. 119 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 547 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 43 -

background for setting the scope of products within the measure. He also requested that China amend the measure appropriately and sufficiently, taking into account comments from Members.

The representative of Switzerland acknowledged China's open engagement both inside the WTO and also in bilateral talks. Switzerland supported China's efforts with trading partners to find a workable solution through the "Electronic Working Group on Food Integrity and Food Fraud", which had been instated by the "Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection"

(CCFICS). Furthermore, Switzerland welcomed China's decision to postpone the entry into force of the measure until further notice. By doing so, China had shown its willingness to take seriously the concern of trade partners.

The representative of Mexico thanked China for the bilateral engagement. Mexico again requested that China provide more detailed information on the next steps being considered for the certification requirements and the entry into force of the implementation of the measure.

The representative of China repeated the response provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting.120

Viet Nam — Decree 116/2017/ND-CP on business requirements for manufacturing, assembly and imports of automobiles, automobiles warranty & maintenance services, G/TBT/N/VNM/116 (IMS ID 549121)

The representative of the European Union reiterated concerns raised at the previous TBT Committee meeting.122 She added that under the framework of Decree 116, Viet Nam had also

notified a new Circular for car parts that no longer allowed for the recognition of UN certificates and required all imports to undergo local testing. These provisions were not in line with the EU-Viet Nam Free Trade Agreement. Viet Nam should recognize EU parts and equipment complying with UN regulations without further testing and certification. The same should apply to passenger cars. Therefore, Viet Nam should accept UN certificates, markings, test-reports and conformity

assessment reports, and to conduct checks only on the basis of a reasonable risk assessment system, that would take into account the very low risk posed by imports conducted by the official

importer of vehicle or component manufacturers. Viet Nam should suspend the application of the Decree and reconsider the comments provided by WTO Members in different fora. The EU requested that Viet Nam reconsult all stakeholders, in particular small volume importers of foreign cars.

The representative of Thailand maintained the concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings.123 The requirement of testing by lot and VTA Certificate mandated by the Decree created unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Thailand underlined that Viet Nam's lot-by-lot testing

procedure deviated from international practices and would most likely impose additional cost and time delays. Feedback from Thai automobile exporters was contrary to what Viet Nam had reported at the March TBT Committee meeting. The current export situation was:

a. Each shipment of imported cars still had to be inspected at the Viet Nam Register, the

single testing authority. This led to many cars awaiting testing and completion of the process extended by up to two months.

b. Due to the bottleneck in the Viet Nam Register, it was unable to conduct proper emission

testing under UN Regulations which resulted in adverse finding. Cars failing to meet the decree's requirements were retested which increased cost and custom clearance time for importers as well as longer waiting time for customers. From July 2019, Viet Nam would not allow a second test so all imported automobiles would be rejected.

In addition, Thailand continued to have serious concerns on the latest circular which had entered into force in April 2019. Viet Nam had clearly failed to comply with the obligations under Article 5.6 of the TBT Agreement as Viet Nam had not notified the circular to WTO at early

appropriate stage and had not provided any comment period. The Thai auto parts industry was encountering difficulties in applying for a conformity certificate due to the limited number of

120 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.217. 121 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 549 (under dates raised and references). 122 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.219. 123 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.218.

G/TBT/M/78

- 44 -

designated certification bodies in Viet Nam; unreasonable processing time; acceptance of Viet Nam Register Laboratory test report only; and frequency of factory audit. This was affecting headlights in particular. Thailand urged Viet Nam to suspend the implementation of Decree 116 and relevant Circulars and take concerns into serious consideration to ease the strict procedures for imported cars; and most importantly, to comply with commitments under the TBT Agreement.

The representative of the United States reiterated concerns raised at the previous TBT

Committee meeting.124

The representative of Japan shared the concerns raised by other Members. She referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.125 She requested that Viet Nam treat imported automobiles and domestic automobiles in an equitable manner.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that Russia shared the concerns raised by

other Members. This measure was discriminatory and more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil

legitimate objectives for imported cars. The measure disrupted traditional trade flows between Viet Nam and other Members of the WTO and Russia requested that Viet Nam revise the measure.

The representative of Viet Nam informed the Committee that the purpose of the provisions in Circular No. 3 was to ensure the protection of the environment and consumer rights. Under the detailed instruction of Viet Nam government agencies, WTO Members had been successful in receiving vehicle approval in accordance with Decree 116 and Circular No. 3. Recent trade figures showed an increase in imported, versus domestically assembled, cars. Car imports in the first four

months of 2019 accounted for half of those for the whole of 2018. Cars from all Members had been imported into Viet Nam, indicating that enterprises had adapted well to provisions of Decree 116 and Circular no. 3. In addition, the Vietnamese Government always accompanied the private sector so as to remove difficulties and ensure balance between benefits to importers and requirements on safety and quality of imported cars.

Viet Nam — Cybersecurity Measures (IMS ID 544126)

The representative of Japan expressed concern with this measure, which had been passed

in the Viet Nam National Assembly in June 2018 and included provisions which could hinder the free flow of information and the participation of foreign companies in Viet Nam's market. At the previous TBT Committee meeting, Viet Nam had explained that the draft decree would continue to be revised with comments from Members taken into account. Japan was particularly concerned with Article 25 of the Decree which indicated that an entity was obliged to store data locally and to establish a domestic branch or representative office. As the article lacked clarity, Japan requested that Viet Nam

confirm how the article would be revised. She also asked that Viet Nam provide information on the current status of the draft and timeline for implementation. In addition, Japan had concerns on whether the draft decree as a whole included technical requirements for IT products or devices and therefore requested that Viet Nam notify the second draft so as to allow Members the opportunity to comment. Viet Nam was encouraged to implement the law and its decree in a transparent manner in order to prevent it from being more trade restrictive than necessary and also to consider the

comments from Japan and other Members.

The representatives of the United States127 and Australia128 reiterated the concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings.

The representative of Canada said that his delegation continued to have concerns with Viet Nam's security measure, particularly as it could have very extensive product coverage. He noted the importance of WTO notifications as well as the use of international standards and conformity assessment frameworks. Canada sought Viet Nam's clarification that this matter did not apply to the

124 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.220. 125 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.221. 126 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 544 (under dates raised and references). 127 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.224 and G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.211 128 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.227 and G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.212.

G/TBT/M/78

- 45 -

private sector. Further, he urged Viet Nam to notify the measure to the TBT Committee so as to allow Members and stakeholders to provide comments.

The representative of the European Union reiterated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings.129 In addition the EU encouraged Viet Nam to develop and implement the Cyber Security law and any implementing measures in full respect of WTO principles, such as non-discrimination and proportionality, and to take into consideration available international standards

and best practices.

The representative of Viet Nam emphasised the importance to Viet Nam of cybersecurity protection as an essential part of the open investment environment, without hindering the development of the digital economy. Therefore, the balance between economic development and national security had always been among the top priorities throughout the development and implementation of the Cyber Security Law. The draft decree implementing cybersecurity law had

now been finalized and would be submitted to the government for further approval. Viet Nam understood and shared the concerns on legal documents implementing cybersecurity law. Accordingly, the provisions on storing data locally and operating representative offices or branches as contained in Article 25 of the draft decree had been developed with openness and flexibility in mind.

China — Catalogue of Solid Wastes Forbidden to Import into China (IMD ID 545130)

The representative of the United States referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.131 China had not provided sufficient details as to what specific environmental concerns it wished to address, nor how these restrictive measures intended to alleviate the environmental concerns. The US had repeatedly requested meetings with China's Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) to work cooperatively to ensure the least trade-restrictive manner possible, yet China had declined all requests and moved forward with the implementation

and expanded the scope of restricted materials.

Her delegation requested that China immediately suspend implementation of its import ban and import control standards for recovered materials and engage in constructive conversations with Members. She was concerned about the release of China's draft revisions on the Law on Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Wastes in July 2018, as this could result in an import ban on recyclable materials. She noted that the qualities of recyclable materials made the classification of them as "waste" inaccurate. She urged China to provide allowances for trade in

recyclable materials and to properly define and distinguish "waste" from recyclable materials and scrap before implementing this draft law.

The representative of Australia, whilst appreciating China's efforts to reduce pollution, reiterated previously raised concerns.132 He urged China to reconsider the measure and engage with trading partners to improve and develop facilitative standards for trade in recyclables.

The representative of New Zealand appreciated China's stated proactive policy objectives in relation to sustainable development. However, he was concerned that vanadium slag was included

in China's catalogue of banned imports. He reiterated that vanadium was not a waste and should not fall under this measure. As China was the largest global producer of vanadium slag, he asked China to clarify how they would ensure that the rules applied to foreign products were no less favourable than those accorded to domestic products. How had China ensured that the import ban on vanadium slag was not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve China's environmental and health protection objectives?

The representative of Canada referred the Committee to statements delivered at previous

TBT Committee meetings since March 2018. He noted that such regulatory changes contributed to the increasingly difficult and uncertain trading conditions for exporters of waste and scrap products. He urged China to consider other mechanisms to address the specific problem of contaminated

129 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.225; G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.213. 130 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 545 (under dates raised and references).

131 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.230 and G/TBT/W/610.

132 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.229 and G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.191.

G/TBT/M/78

- 46 -

materials, while ensuring that mutually beneficial trade could continue in a predictable manner and fulfilling environmental protection goals.

The representative of China responded to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/653.

India - Amended regulation on toy imports (ID 546133)

The representative of China raised concerns with this measure. India had published this

amended regulation on toy imports on 1 September 2017, and only notified it to the WTO at the end of 2017, without providing any comment period or time for industry to adapt. Given the significant effect this regulation would have on toy trade, China requested that India allow the opportunity for WTO Members to provide comments. The amended regulation required that imported toys conform with Indian Standards, and not international standards, and, that they be tested by labs accredited

by the Indian National Accreditation Body (NABL), rather than labs accredited under the ILAC MRA.

These requirements led to higher costs to toy companies. China requested that India make modifications to the regulation, harmonize it with international standards, recognize test reports issued by ILAC MRA labs, and establish a transparent and trade facilitative environment.

The representative of the United States and the European Union supported China's concerns raised. The representative of the EU referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.134

The representative of Canada supported the comments made by other Members. He noted

the importance of allowing foreign accredited laboratories to test toys in order to put foreign and domestic producers on the same level playing field.

The representative of India reiterated that the measure had been developed to immediately stop the imports of toys that posed health risks to users, particularly children. This had been done

based on analysis and the representations received from the stakeholders. Toys imported into India were found to be unsafe for children's health. Hence as an emergency measure, action had been taken to ensure appropriate standards and conformity assessment procedures were followed.

Detailed information on safety concerns on toys were already highlighted in the referred standard i.e., IS 9873 and IS 15644. She said the standard IS 9873, and in particular parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, were identical to corresponding ISO standard i.e., ISO8127. Similarly, the standard IS 15644 was identical to corresponding IEC standard i.e., IEC 62115. She assured the Committee that there were sufficient numbers of NABL-accredited labs and therefore no delays in testing. Furthermore, she said the test charges were lower when compared to international rates.

On the issue of Quality Control Order, 2019, she referred the Committee to the statement delivered under STC 4135, stating that the matter was still in the domestic stakeholder consultation process. Once available, it would be notified to the WTO giving Members the opportunity to provide comments. She requested that Members send India their statements so that capital-based officials

could provide any further clarification.

European Union — Application of Regulation No. 1169/2011 and Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 as regards the labelling of food products, in not prohibiting or examining

the use of "palm oil free" labels (IMS ID 555136)

The representatives of Colombia and Indonesia continued to raise concerns with this measure. The statements are contained in G/TBT/W/664 and G/TBT/W/642.

The representative of Costa Rica repeated his delegation's concerns relating to the widespread use on the European market of labels including wording such as "palm oil free". As previously stated, Costa Rica considered that there was no proper scientific justification for generally maintaining that products manufactured with palm oil were harmful to health and that therefore

there was no basis for allowing the inclusion of wording of this kind on the packaging, As such, his

133 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 546 (under dates raised and references). 134 G/TBT/M/77, paras. 3.235-3.236. 135 India - Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2019. 136 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 555 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 47 -

delegation deemed that the EU had committed an oversight in allowing this additional statement, resulting in non-compliance with the principles and legitimate objectives of the TBT Agreement.

The representative of Honduras shared the concerns raised by Colombia and Indonesia and underlined the importance of the palm oil sector for Honduras, with many thousands of permanent jobs and farmers relying on this product. Palm oil was controlled in Honduras, including by regulations protecting forests and only a very minimal impact on the environment from this product

had been observed. She thanked the EU for the bilateral meeting.

The representative of Thailand registered his delegation's interest in palm oil free labels, recalling the concerns raised at the March 2019 TBT Committee meeting. Thailand would continue to monitor the development of this concern in the TBT Committee.

The representative of Malaysia continued to share concerns raised by other Members under

this STC.

The representative of Ecuador supported the concern raised by Colombia and Indonesia with regard to the practice of labelling food products as being "palm oil free", insofar as it generated a negative campaign against those products in particular, without a technical or scientific basis. Her delegation considered that from the nutritional standpoint, this labelling constituted an unfounded negative generalization, implying that palm oil was somehow harmful to health or nutritionally inferior to other similar vegetable oils. From the environmental standpoint, this labelling implied that palm oil per se was less ecological or sustainable than other similar vegetable oils, without

considering the particular circumstances of African palm producing countries such as Ecuador, for example, where palm oil was produced responsibly and sustainably, as explained at some length in her delegation's statement concerning STC 23137.

Although the labels did not include explicit references to nutritional properties or the possible environmental consequences of consuming palm oil, Ecuador was of the view that the negative

allusion was implicit in the message through its very ambiguity and had a dissuasive effect on the consumer which in turn had an unfair and discriminatory impact on the product. These actions fell

within the context of misleading commercial practices, as mentioned by Colombia in its statement, since even though the information was factually correct it might lead the consumer to take a decision that he or she would not otherwise have taken. Ecuador called on the EU to provide information concerning the control procedures it carried out to ensure that the information in the labels on the products indicating that they were palm oil free did not infringe its own domestic legislation in force and did not result in unjustified discrimination against the product. Ecuador thanked the EU for the

bilateral meeting.

The representative of the European Union recalled that Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers138 did not require nor regulate any form of negative labelling, such as, "palm oil free". She underlined that the Regulation allowed information to be provided by manufacturers on a voluntary basis such as to indicate that a product ingredient had not been used in a food product provided that this was not ambiguous, confusing or misleading for the consumer.

She stressed that the decision to use this type of labelling was a voluntary practice, put in place by

manufacturers and that it would not stem from a technical regulation as defined by the TBT Agreement. Moreover, the statement "palm oil free" per se/alone was not considered as a nutrition claim within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006139 on nutrition and health claims.

EU member States were responsible for enforcing, monitoring and verifying that relevant EU food law requirements were fulfilled by food business operators. The European Commission met

137 European Union — Amendments to the Directive 2009/28/EC, Renewable Energy Directive 138 Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the

provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 8).

139 Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made in foods (OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9).

G/TBT/M/78

- 48 -

regularly with the member States' competent authorities on food labelling to discuss food labelling/claim issues and to ensure harmonized implementation of both Regulations. She indicated that a regularly updated "Question and Answer" document was available to help food business operators to comply with EU labelling requirements.

Thailand - Certificate of Analysis for the import of alcoholic beverages G/TBT/N/THA/524 (ID 556140)

The representative of the European Union raised concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/659.

The representative of Japan requested that Thailand provide the latest information on this issue. Japan requested that Thailand amend this ministerial regulation appropriately and provide sufficient scientific evidence and background before its entry into force. Comments from Members

should also be taken into account.

The representatives of New Zealand141 and Australia142 reiterated statements made at the previous TBT Committee meeting.

The representative of Thailand informed the Committee that the Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Importation Permission 2017 had been in force since 16 September 2017. The EU, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Chile had expressed concern about the liquor importation permission criteria and the liquor analysis standard. Thailand provided the following update on the progress of the revision of the Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Importation Permission

2017 as follows:

a. Thailand's Excise Department had amended the Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Importation Permission 2017 and issued a revised statement on the Ministerial Regulation entitled Liquor Importation Permission (No.2) 2019 that prescribed that any person

intends to import liquors into the Kingdom of Thailand should:

"Submit samples of liquors to be imported to the Director General for quality examination and analysis - prior to file an application for permission

- or submit the certificate of analysis to examine whether they are qualified in accordance with the Excise standards as to be announced by the Director General, provided that the certificate shall be issued by the agencies as set out by the Director General to be the liquor quality examination and analysis agencies - or the agencies of foreign governments or the agencies as acknowledged by foreign governments to have the duty to control the

liquor production of the liquor producers in foreign countries".

b. Under the revision of the Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Importation Permission (No.2) 2019 and the new Excise Department Notification, the Excise Department had held several

meetings with representatives from several Members including the EU, US, Australia, Japan, Canada and Mexico. The new notification was focused on the protection of human health and safety, was not discriminatory between domestic and imported liquors and was aligned with international practices.

c. Thailand had circulated the Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Importation Permission (No.2) 2019 and the Notification of the Excise Department on Prescribing Quality Standard for Imported Liquor on 18 June 2019 in G/TBT/N/THA/548 and G/TBT/N/THA/549.

He assured the Committee that Thailand recognized the concerns raised by Members and that comments provided would be taken into account. Thailand was available for further discussion with interested Members.

140 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 556 (under dates raised and references). 141 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.253 142 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.254 and G/TBT/M/76, paras. 3.241-3.242.

G/TBT/M/78

- 49 -

India — Testing and Certification of telegraph (The Indian telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2017), G/TBT/N/IND/66 (IMS ID 558143)

The representative of the United States referred the Committee to the statement delivered at the previous TBT Committee meeting.144

The representative of the Republic of Korea supported the comments made by the US. It was stressed that, according to the regulation, the product needed to be tested in a TEC-designated

testing laboratory in India, and after undergoing necessary certification procedures, TEC certification mark had to be attached on the product. The enforcement date was August 2019, but a testing laboratory for the mandatory testing fields such as LTE, LTE-A radio (RF), Internet Protocol Version (IPv6), and GPS, had not been designated. Also, designated testing laboratories for SAR and 2.4 GHz RF were not enough, which made it difficult to acquire the certification. Moreover, global manufacturers would be applying for the certification all at the same time – right after the

enforcement date, and Korea worried that it would take a long time. Therefore, Korea requested India, in respect of the amendment of Indian Telegraph Rules: (i) to designate a testing laboratory for all the fields; (ii) to ensure that no technical barriers to trade due to lack of designated laboratories resulted; and (iii) to grant a grace period of at least six months after designating a testing laboratory for all the fields. It was also important that the designated laboratories had sufficient resources to cope with the testing and certification demands, so the exporting companies could comply with the regulation.

The representative of India reiterated a number of points in respect of the India's scheme of Testing and Certification of Telegraph (The Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2017) – which, she said, had been notified to WTO. She stressed that the Rule was intended to safeguard safety of the user and security of the network. Second, the scheme did not restrict the testing to Conformance Assessment Bodies (CAB's) located in India only, but also allowed testing from TEC recognized international CAB's located in MRA partner countries. The scheme was non-discriminatory with respect to OEM – domestic or foreign as well as the location of CAB – that was TEC designated Lab

in India or recognized lab in MRA partner country anywhere in the world. The list of designated testing laboratories was available in DoT website. Regarding the date of enforcement, it was noted that the implementation date for ITR, 2017 had been extended to August 2019. It was noted that the date of 31 March 2019, up to which test results from ILAC accredited labs were accepted, was by way of relaxation considering the demand from the industry. It would not be feasible to continue the relaxation indefinitely. It was also noted that the issue of overlap was being worked upon.

Delegations were reassured that at no point of time would industry be subjected to duplicate testing requirements under the CRO and under "The Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules 2017". The request for providing a grace period for implementation of the regulation had been noted and would be transmitted to Capital.

United States — TSA Certification on security screening equipment (IMS ID 559145)

The representative of China reiterated concerns raised at previous TBT Committee

meetings.146 In addition China hoped that the US would, in line with transparency obligations under the TBT Agreement, notify the TSA certification in advance, allowing Members to provide comments.

The representative of the United States said that while the US appreciated China's concerns, the TSA Certification was a government procurement requirement. As the only evidence China had provided had been federal procurement documents, the US did not see this as a TBT issue.

143 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 558 (under dates raised and references). 144 G/TBT/M/77, para 3.259. 145 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 559 (under dates raised and references). 146 G/TBT/M/77, para. 3.261; G/TBT/M/76, para. 3.258 and G/TBT/W/581.

G/TBT/M/78

- 50 -

Russian Federation — Federal law No 487-FZ, providing a framework for comprehensive use of special labelling and traceability of goods and Decision No. 792-r specifying the goods to which labelling will apply and the dates of introduction of the mandatory labelling (IMS ID 567147)

The representative of the European Union continued to raise concerns with this measure. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/660.

The representative of the Republic of Korea supported the concerns raised by the EU.

The representative of the Russian Federation provided responses to the concerns raised. The full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/667.

Brazil — Technical Regulation 14, 8 February 2018, to set the additional official

identity, quality standards for wine and derivatives of grape and wine products as well as the requirements to be acquainted and Technical Regulation No. 48, 31 August 2018

published in the Official Gazette on 10 September 2018 (IMS ID 568148)

The representative of the European Union thanked Brazil for the fruitful bilateral meeting. She said that the EU wine industry was experiencing disruptions to trade due to the implementation of the Technical Regulation No. 14 of 8 February 2018 setting the official identity, quality standards for wine and derivatives of grape and wine products. It contained a long list of analytical parameters and for test methods differing from those used in the EU and not aligned with the OIV recommendations.

Delays in custom clearance appeared to be caused by the lengthy checking of compliance to the Technical Regulation No. 14. The EU asked Brazil whether the network of laboratories accredited by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture to perform the tests foreseen in Technical Regulation No. 14 had sufficient capacity to guarantee efficient custom clearances of imported wines. Likewise, the

requirement to test at origin for parameters that were not used or even banned (such as colourings and sweeteners) in the EU wine industry was challenging to EU-based laboratories given the lack of a methodology to comply with those tests. This led to high costs for the tests of those specific

parameters. At the previous TBT Committee meeting, Brazil had said that Technical Regulation No. 14 would soon be revised. The EU asked about the timeframe for public consultation and the TBT notification of the revised draft regulation. She reiterated the invitation to the Brazilian authorities to make use, to the maximum extent possible, of the recommendations of the OIV when revising Technical Regulation No. 14 and to consider accepting imported wines made according to oenological practices authorized by the OIV. The EU was prepared to work bilaterally with Brazil in

this respect.

The representative of New Zealand said that the requirements for the certificate of analysis for wine exported to Brazil set out in Normative Instruction 14 (IN14) 2018, posed a significant barrier to trade for New Zealand wine exporters. Recognized wine testing laboratories in New

Zealand did not provide testing for parameters such as total sulphates expressed as potassium sulphate, total chlorides expressed as sodium chloride, ash and methyl alcohol. Testing for these parameters would have to be out-sourced to overseas laboratories, at significant cost to exporters.

This could result in trade no longer being viable.

Considering Brazil's obligations under the TBT Agreement, New Zealand requested that Brazil advise Members how it had ensured that the certificate of analysis requirements implemented through Normative Instruction 14 2018 were not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve Brazil's objectives. He invited Brazil to share the rationale for its departure from conformity with OIV-adopted standards. It was New Zealand's understanding that IN14 was currently subject to an internal review by the Brazilian authorities and noted that this review provided a timely opportunity

to bring IN14 into alignment with OIV recommendations.

The representative of Brazil referred the Committee to responses provided at previous TBT Committee meetings, and in particular the statement circulated in G/TBT/W/561 where the technical

147 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 567 (under dates raised and references). 148 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 568 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 51 -

questions raised had been addressed. The EU delegation had stressed that containers of EU wine had been blocked in Brazilian ports due to delays in customs clearance. At the bilateral meeting held earlier in the week, Brazil had requested further information regarding these containers. Brazilian competent authorities had not yet received enough details about these shipments. Brazil reaffirmed that neither this regulation nor any other Brazilian legislation concerning the wine sector represented an obstacle to exports of wine from the EU to Brazil. EU wine was the largest in the Brazilian market,

corresponding to around 40% of Brazil imports, ahead of Chile and Mercosur partners.

Egypt — Halal requirements for Poultry Parts and Offal (IMS ID 571149)

The representative of the United States thanked Egypt for their bilateral engagement regarding compliance with halal standards and for the responses to the concerns raised at previous TBT Committee meetings on the issue of halal requirements for poultry. However, Egypt continued to deny market access to US poultry producers for exports of poultry parts, citing halal concerns,

despite demonstrated assurance of compliance by US exporters. She noted that this was an issue for exports from other countries as well and looked forward to this issue being resolved in the near future.

She said that at past TBT Committee meetings, Egypt had cited the challenges in verifying the source of all imported parts, the compliance of slaughtering houses, and difficulty in differentiating between poultry parts and raptors. However, in the case of the United States, in September 2013, Egypt's General Organization for Veterinary Services (GOVS) inspected and

confirmed that 22 US producers had met Egyptian halal and food safety standards. Thus, the US saw no reason for Egypt to continue to restrict trade. In light of the agency's existing verification, Egypt was requested to remove its unjustified barriers to trade. Poultry parts and offal should be granted the same full market access as whole frozen birds, given that they were produced under the same regulatory regime and halal requirements. She invited Egypt to provide an update with respect to GOVS and halal certification.

The representative of Egypt reiterated the importance of halal requirements to the Egyptian

population, stemming from religious beliefs. The difficulties faced by Egyptian authorities in verifying the source of imports in case of poultry parts had been explained. This had led to adopting this decision aimed at safeguarding consumers' health as well as the values and beliefs of Egyptian society. Egypt also reiterated that only whole poultry was considered to be in compliance with halal requirements, upon the verification of the concerned authorities in Egypt.

3.2.3 STC procedures adopted on a trial basis

The Chairman recalled that the Committee had agreed, in the Eighth Triennial Review, to adopt new procedures for the discussion of STCs, on a trial basis at the March and June 2019 meetings. These procedures include earlier deadlines for submission of STCs – twenty calendar days prior to the convening of the TBT Committee meeting; and for circulation of the Annotated draft Agenda – fifteen calendar days prior to the Committee. In addition, it was noted, the new procedures called on Members to indicate whether STCs they wish to raise were in respect of "proposed" or

"final" measures. This information had been included in the Annotated draft Agenda of March

meeting, and the June (current) meeting. As was stated in the footnote to the Eighth Triennial Review recommendation – document G/TBT/41, footnote 305 on page 26 – the Committee needed to decide whether to continue with these new procedures. The Chairman said that the new procedures appeared to be working well. He had also consulted with the previous Chairman who also had a positive view on the way they had worked out during the March (2019) meeting.

The Chairman therefore proposed that the Committee adopt the new procedures on a permanent basis, as set out in the Eighth Triennial Review report, G/TBT/41, para. 8.2 (b.i). This

would mean, he emphasized, that the Committee would continue with the new deadlines for submission of STCs and circulation of the Annotated draft Agenda, as well as information on "proposed" and "final" measures.

It was so agreed.

149 For previous statements follow the thread under IMS ID 571 (under dates raised and references).

G/TBT/M/78

- 52 -

3.3 Exchange of Experiences

3.3.1 Guidelines on Conformity Assessment Procedures

The Chairman recalled that an informal meeting had been held on Tuesday 18 June 2019 on the draft guidelines for conformity assessment, in follow-up to the Eighth Triennial Review mandate. The EU had presented a paper, setting out its ideas and proposals on guidance principles and best practices, as well as an overview of the EU system on conformity assessment. Other Members shared

comments and flagged their intention to submit papers after this meeting. He said that this was a useful first discussion and noted that the Committee would revert to the matter at its next meeting. The Aide-Memoire document on the follow-up to the Eighth Triennial Review has been updated to reflect this discussion (Section 2 of JOB/TBT/273/Rev.4).

3.3.2 Transparency

The Chairman recalled that at the conclusion of the Eighth Triennial Review, Members had

agreed to hold a thematic session on transparency, including the Ninth Special Meeting on Procedures for Information Exchange, over one and a half days, starting in the afternoon of Tuesday 18 June 2019. A background note had been provided by the Secretariat to assist delegations in deliberations on the topic (JOB/TBT/320 and JOB/TBT/320/Corr.1) and a comprehensive summary report had been provided by the moderator of the Thematic Session on Transparency (G/TBT/GEN/265). The webcast of the session is available here.

3.4 Follow-up on Committee Decisions and Recommendations

The Chairman recalled that for the November 2019 meeting there would be two thematic sessions, one on conformity assessment procedures, focusing on National Quality Infrastructure; and the other on standards, focusing on incorporating standards by reference in regulations. There were already a few proposals on the table for these two sessions, as indicated in the latest revision

of the Secretariat's Aide-Memoire document (JOB/TBT/273/Rev.3). The Chairman said that to prepare for these sessions, he intended to hold an informal meeting in September. This meeting was subsequently scheduled for Thursday, 26 September p.m. (see RD/TBT/281).

On the topic of the thematic sessions to be held in November, the Chairman asked the Committee if these could be webcast as had been done for earlier thematic sessions held by the TBT Committee.

It was so agreed.

3.5 Other recommendations from the 8th Triennial Review

The Chairman said, in respect of other recommendations emanating from the Eighth

Triennial Review, that it would be helpful to hear more about Members' interests and priorities. He

suggested – considering where the last Chairman left off – that it might be useful for the Committee to continue its emphasis on developing the guidelines on conformity assessment. It remained important, however, to move forward in other areas. For example, it could also be useful for the Committee to continue discussing the revised format for addenda in the area of transparency. Moreover, he drew Members' attention to the recommendation on improving the "efficiency and effectiveness of the Committee's consideration of specific trade concerns" (G/TBT/41, p.26). Given

the time the Committee spent on this agenda item, any ideas Members had on how to approach the mandate, in other words how to save time, were welcome. He remained open to any Member that wished to consult with him on these matters, directly or via the Secretariat.

4 TECHNICAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES

The representative of the European Union reported that Sweden, in cooperation with the EU, had held a successful Side Event on technical assistance coordination in the margins of the TBT Committee. Several countries had shared examples on when technical assistance coordination had

proven useful and on challenges faced. There seemed to be a consensus that there was a need for a certain structure at the domestic level to ensure an effective cooperation. It was noted that the WTO Secretariat had highlighted the importance of discussion on technical assistance coordination;

G/TBT/M/78

- 53 -

this was demonstrated by the fact that the issue had been discussed in the Committee for several years. At the end of the event, Sweden offered the option to host a first informal meeting in 2020 in the margins of the TBT Committee to continue the important discussion on technical assistance coordination for TBT.

The Secretariat informed the Committee that a TBT Transparency Workshop had taken place in parallel to the TBT Committee meetings. The participants had attended parts of the Committee,

including the transparency thematic session. They had also participated in other training sessions, including on the use of online tools and on experience-sharing among themselves. Six of the participants also presented during the thematic session on transparency. She noted that the Secretariat usually received many more applications for its courses than could be supported for such workshops; this time nine additional participants could be included thanks to financial support from ANSI, the Swedish Board of Trade and ISO. The Secretariat thanked these organizations for the

support.

The representative of St Kitts and Nevis said that the Transparency Workshop had been a very useful opportunity to share ideas, difficulties and challenges. For example, experiences showed that it paid off to submit notifications using the NSS, and that ePing was a useful tool for enquiry points as well as industry. At the national level, working on guidelines helped enquiry point teams stay up to date, respond to notifications, and focus on quality rather than quantity of notifications.

5 UPDATING BY OBSERVERS

5.1 Updates from Observers

The representative of Mexico drew the Committee's attention to the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting which had been held on 13-17 May 2019 in Ottawa, Canada. During that meeting, discussion had taken place on a first draft of a revision for standards: "Follow up formula". Paragraph 9.6.4 of that draft stated that products needed to be labelled in such a way as to avoid

any risk of confusion between infant formula, follow-up formula for older infants, for young children, and formula for special medical purposes – and also to enable consumers to make a clear distinction

between them, in particular as to the text, images and colours used. There was also a prohibition between cross promotion between categories of products on the labelling of the product.

Mexico noted that this prohibition of cross promotion could prohibit the trademark holders who were involved in this, including on the obligation of Members under the framework of the TBT Agreement. Considering this, Mexico said that the concept "cross promotion" needed to be analysed and discussed in greater detail to determine whether this was compatible with rules of international

trade established by WTO and WIPO. Mexico urged Members to participate in any future discussions and keep themselves informed as to new developments on this topic in Codex.

The representative of the United States shared Mexico's concerns and believed the work undertaken by WTO Members pursuant to Codex needed to be consistent with WTO TBT obligations.

The representatives of BIPM, UNECE, OIML, ISO and IEC 150 provided updates on their activities related to the TBT Committee.

5.2 Pending requests

The Chairman turned to the issue of pending requests for observer status. He recalled that the list of observers, including pending requests, was contained in document G/TBT/GEN/2/Rev.14. In addition, document RD/TBT/1/Rev.6 provided a compilation of the various bodies that had sought observer status in the TBT Committee and whose requests were still pending. Both these documents were up to date (no further requests had been received to date). He noted that he had no new information regarding Members' positions with respect to the pending requests. He therefore suggested, unless any Members had any other view (or different information), that the Committee

revert to this matter when Members had had the time to further consult among themselves.

150 G/TBT/GEN/266, G/TBT/GEN/267, G/TBT/GEN/268 G/TBT/GEN/269 and

https://www.iec.ch/about/globalreach/partners/wto/wto_report.htm

G/TBT/M/78

- 54 -

The representative of Turkey reiterated his delegation's support for granting observer status to the Standards and Metrology Institute for Islamic Countries (SMIIC) at the TBT Committee; he invited other Members to echo their support. SMIIC had conveyed its request in 2017 and Turkey had openly been supporting that request since then. He recalled that SMICC had been established in 2010 and was an affiliate organization institute of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which had the membership of 57 countries. As the intergovernmental standardization institution of

the OIC, SMIIC aimed to develop the infrastructure, economies and trade capacities of each member country – thereby enhancing international trade. SMIIC acceptance and compliance with the Code of Good Practice was a clear indication of SMIIC's stand in this regard. Since its establishment in 2010, the number of SMIIC members had increased and had recently reached 37 member states. Turkey expected this trend to continue until SMIIC covered all members of the OIC in the near future. It was stressed that the 27 members of SMIIC were already Members of the WTO, while 10

members were observers. Therefore, being an observer to the WTO TBT Committee would be an expected route for the SMIIC to follow. Turkey was of the view that the participation of SMIIC in the

TBT Committee with observer status would contribute to the ultimate objective of reducing unnecessary barriers to trade and enhancing cooperation in the areas of standardization, conformity assessment, metrology and accreditation. It would mean that SMIIC members would be notified in a timely manner of the latest developments in international trade, and, in turn, SMIIC would be able to take essential steps to ask its members to fulfil the necessary requirements of the TBT Agreement

and stay aware of potential technical barriers to trade. SMIIC would contribute to the Committee's work by providing its point of view on each area of activity. Turkey was of the firm view that this would promote international trade.

The representative of Jordan supported Turkey's statement.

The representative of the United States said that her delegation did not have approval for granting observer status to the SMIIC at the current time.

6 OTHER BUSINESS

The Secretariat reported on a number of Secretariat activities related to TBT. At the upcoming Aid for Trade Review, the WTO would launch a publication with the OECD Secretariat on "Facilitating Trade Through Regulatory Cooperation – the case of the WTO's TBT SPS Agreements and Committees." This publication is available here.151 The Secretariat was also holding a session in cooperation with the World Bank on Quality Infrastructure for Trade – Better Quality, Better Trade. The session would discuss constraints faced by developing country Members, provide some

perspectives on what different organizations were doing to address capacity related challenges of QI and TBT, and also reflect on opportunities there might be for more collaboration and support. Further information, including audio and webcasting, is available here.152 Finally, it was reported that in the margins of the November Committee meeting there would be a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the 1979 Tokyo Round TBT Agreement Standards Code. This event, organized by the Secretariat, on 15 November 2019 would bring together experts, former negotiators, some current delegates and scholars to commemorate the past and reflect on the future of the WTO TBT

Agreement.

7 DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 13-14 November 2019. It will be preceded by thematic sessions on conformity assessment procedures, focusing on the National Quality Infrastructure; and on standards, focusing on incorporating standards by reference in regulations.

__________

151 https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tbtsps19_e.pdf. 152 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/gr19_e/gr19programme_e.htm.