93. The Eighth Session of the Committee had agreed that the proposed draft Guidelines would be developed by a drafting group under the direction of Australia for circulation and comment at Step 3 and further consideration at the present Session[24]. The revised text was introduced by the Delegation of Australia which noted that the guidelines presented a high degree of complexity due to the differences between “technical regulations” and “standards” as defined in the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). To allow a basis for comparison, the concept of “technical requirement” had been introduced. This also allowed a certain amount of correspondence with the Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems (see previous Agenda Item).
94. The Delegation of France regretted not having been associated with the work of the drafting group, the deadline for reply being too short and coinciding with the European summer vacation.
95. There was general agreement that the revised text was a considerable improvement on the previous version, but that there were several outstanding issues to be resolved most notably the inconsistent use of terminology. Although some delegations were of the opinion that the text could be merged with the text on judgement of equivalence of sanitary measures, other delegations pointed out that the basis for the determination of equivalence in the SPS and TBT Agreements was different even though the processes were similar and that this could lead to confusion. The Committee agreed therefore that, at least for the time being, the two texts would be developed on a parallel but separate basis.
96. Several delegations drew attention to the concept of “technical requirements” introduced into the text and noted that this was not the same at “Technical Regulations” as defined in the TBT Agreement. One delegation questioned whether the requirements under this definition would be applied to contractual arrangements between buyer and seller.
97. The Committee agreed that the definition of “Equivalence (of technical requirements)” should be aligned with the corresponding text on sanitary measures and the definition of “technical requirement” would be re-worded for consistency with the TBT definition of “technical regulation”.
98. In general and where appropriate, the text would be amended for consistency with the corresponding text on sanitary measures, including the provisions relating to transparency and the need for consultation with all interested parties. It was suggested that all judgements of equivalence should specify mechanisms by which the importing country could verify that the exporting country continued to administer and enforce the measures covered by the determination of equivalence.
STATUS OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT GUIDELINES ON THE JUDGEMENT OF EQUIVALENCE OF TECHNICAL REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FOOD INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS
99. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the members of the Drafting Group. It was of the opinion that the text as currently drafted was proceeding in the right direction but that it needed substantial revision in view of changes made to the corresponding text on sanitary measures. It requested the drafting group (Australia, France, South Africa, USA and the European Commission) to prepare a revised text on this basis that also took into account the oral comments and written comments provided at the present session. The revised text should be issued in ample time for comment by Members and interested international organizations. The comments should be circulated well in advance of the Committee’s next Session. The Committee also suggested that the draft text should be accompanied by examples of the application of the guidelines to different types of technical requirements for further discussion by the Committee, in order to facilitate further development of the Guidelines.
100. The Committee noted that considerable work was required to finalize the document and therefore returned the text to Step 2 of the Procedure.
