Roundtable on Transatlantic Standards Issues: Meeting NotesU.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC January 10, 2005
Event Notes Over 130 participants attended an event on January
10, 2005, sponsored by the U.S. Commerce Department aimed at gathering
stakeholder feedback on ways the U.S. and EU can foster better cooperation on
standards to improve trade. The event was part of a larger U.S.-EU Economic
Stakeholders Dialogue which will present recommendations at the 2005 U.S.-EU
Summit on concrete ways of strengthening and deepening Transatlantic trade and
investment. The events moderator who also provided opening remarks was Penelope
Naas, Director of the Commerce Departments Office of European Union and
Regional Affairs. The Commerce Departments Standards Liaison, Heidi Hijikata,
was also present. The Commerce Department appreciates the participation
of all of the attendees and encourages them to email written comments to
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
Following are synopses of comments made by
various stakeholders; comments have not been attributed to specific individuals
or organizations:
Comments
1. There are a growing number of regulations in
the EU that lack scientific and economic justification. Redundant testing
requirements represent a big problem (e.g., Germans dont accept French
standards, etc.); harmonization (including specific timelines) between the U.S.
and EU would be helpful. More dialogue and a MOU would be good, however, an
approach that is overly broad or general will not help much. The EU approach is
to control the market, with regulations and standards directed from the top
down. The EU is trying to export a system that is "voluntary" in theory, but in
practice is mandatory, for example, given the presumption of conformity to CE
mark directives for products tested to European standards. This type system is
attractive to and easily exported to developing countries where decision-making
tends to be top down as well. The question is how does the U.S. counteract this?
2. The EU standards system is complex and
sophisticated. There is a powerful, intricate infrastructure in Brussels with
the ability to drive internal European standards through the ISO/IEC system and
thereby promulgate them globally. A good example of this can be seen in low
frequency emission (LFE) and harmonics standards, created by European power
companies, which have become a huge issue. Governments outside Europe with
different power infrastructures are beginning to mandate the IEC standard. U.S.
industry has done studies to prove there is no scientific basis for this
standard in Europe, much less in countries like China and Japan. The U.S.
government should pressure the Commission to support a study on the technical
justification for this standard in this regulation. Also, if a technical
standard is required to support legislation, then it should be a European Norm
(EN) rather than in the form of a "workshop agreement" or other mechanism that
requires less openness and transparency. When a technical standard is mandated,
the EU needs to ensure it is the norm within the infrastructure. There is a
trend of European Standards Organizations (ESOs) developing potentially
technically inferior standards as European Norms (ENs) that conflict with ISO
standards. For example, there is an existing international standard for printer
cartridges, yet CEN has begun new and duplicative work in that area. Need to
introduce a more market-driven approach within the ESOs. More coordination
within and between industry and government early in the standards/regulatory
process is important. We need to improve the existing early action and early
warning systems that are in place for standards issues. The U.S.-EU ICT Dialogue
has been good in this regard, especially on the e-accessibility issue.
3. The EU overall is a good market for food products,
but U.S. industry is definitely facing problems. Regulatory challenges are
increasing and, unfortunately, U.S. food products are being pulled from the EU
market. In recent years, EU regulatory initiatives (such as the 2004
Traceability and Labeling requirements) have created more market barriers. In
CODEX, the EU and the U.S. are "rarely on the same page." EU standards are based
on political objectives, not technological justification; the EU uses standards
to advance political objectives. Unclear what the solution could be; however,
international consensus can be found by using scientific, objective criteria,
and improved coordination and cooperation would help.
4. Lessons learned from REACH: The EU seems bent on
establishing de facto international standards, and they have explicitly stated
that. By throwing down the gauntlet without first having bilateral
consultations, the EU is creating immediate problems. The EUs needs could have
been addressed long before the legislative process if it had looked at existing
chemical data and regimes. Changes in definitions and terminology in REACH will
create more barriers. Early dialogue on mutual problems could forestall similar
problems in the future.
5. The U.S. and EU ought to make research and
education a formal part of efforts to improve the Transatlantic economy. Close
cooperation between the EU and Southeast Asia was cited as a good model, wherein
Asian professionals/officials receive training about the European standards and
regulatory system to become more familiar and comfortable with the European
approach. Business schools in Europe, such as Erasmus University, provide the
academic venue for these trainings/exchanges. Also, e-learning is a good tool
for understanding standards. The question is how to formalize these efforts in
the context of not only the U.S.-EU relationship but how to do that with other
trading partners. First, research needs to be done to establish what really are
the issues. Then, we need to formalize an understanding of these issues at the
university/academic level (business schools). We need to promote understanding
of standards and conformity assessment in universities on both sides of
Atlantic. The U.S. and EU should use universities because they are neutral fora;
specifically recommended working with Helmut-Schmidt University which has
conducted projects at the business school level along these lines.
6. Some EU standards are good for consumers. For
example, many U.S. consumers want domestic labeling and traceability of
genetically engineered foods. Consumers want the U.S. and EU to focus on best
practices and to "harmonize up" on consumer safety issues.
7. There is concern the EU is accelerating efforts to
export its standards to developing countries. Allegation that Europe is
"bullying" soon there wont be anything left for the U.S. to discuss. "The
dichotomy is alarming."
8. The problem of interagency coordination must be
examined realistically. Unless the regulatory agencies on both sides of the
Atlantic have a mandate and the needed resources, we wont see much progress.
Agencies need internal resources. They also need resources for explaining
technical assistance to foreign governments. The EU has put money into this.
Suggests creation of a senior level Transatlantic Regulatory Policy Forum to
identify key regulatory issues and bring the existing dialogue to a higher
level. Commerce should push Congress to give necessary mandate to regulatory
agencies to consider international trade implications as part of their work, to
increase funding for technical assistance to developing countries, and to ensure
NIST has sufficient funding.
9. The USNC/IEC has put two proposals into the IEC
regarding Essential Differences Requirements (EDRs), but the process for getting
approval in IEC has been very difficult. The ISO approved its Global Relevance
policy last June, which allows for flexibility of choice within an ISO standard
if the technical experts agree. ANSI needs to keep pressure on the European
members of IEC and ISO to adhere to the Global Relevance policies, as it appears
some national standards bodies/national committees in Europe are backsliding
from the requirements. Dialogue, engagement, and consensus-building at a broad
policy level, rather than confrontation, has been a good strategy in the past,
and it is hoped such a strategy will continue to provide positive results in the
future.
10. EU standards are spreading to developing
countries; not just the standards, but every step of the product life cycle,
from cradle to grave. The EU has a "unified field" approach that disadvantages
U.S. companies. (1) The EU does not rely on work going on in existing fora, for
example, REACH is going contrary to whats been sought after and accomplished in
other fora, such as OECD and the United Nations. The U.S. needs to use these
organizations more effectively, as well. (2) Responsiveness: The EU is not just
ignoring good suggestions on REACH, it is dismissing them completely. (3) The
business community on both sides of the Atlantic must be involved in order to
successfully address standards and regulations with such wide ranging
implications. (4) Standards should be flexible, not prescriptive, and should be
driven by and promote innovation.
11. There is a parallel process of Stakeholder
Consultations taking place in the EU; written comments have been solicited, are
being received and reviewed. There have been events in Brussels and in member
states. The comments from EU industry mirror those of U.S. industry.
12. Dialogue will not solve the issues surrounding
standards and regulations; both a consensus based approach and confrontation
must be used. Any new standards initiative must reflect the EUs perspective on
environmental regulations and sustainable development. Export of EU standards is
a big problem. The precautionary principle is the basis for the EU promoting its
standards outside Europe. The UN is becoming the primary forum for the export of
EU standards. Precaution is even showing up at the state level in the U.S.,
where NGOs are trying to establish precaution as a U.S. standard. The U.S. and
EU differ greatly; the U.S. focuses on risk management, while the EU focuses on
precaution. The EU also defines "risk assessment" and "sustainable development"
differently than does the U.S. The U.S. and EU need to emphasize these issues do
not only relate to Transatlantic standards, but to standards in developing
countries. Our end goal should be to have U.S. standards become the world
standards, to place U.S. standards at the forefront. U.S. standards often dont
see the light of day due to EU influence within ISO and other international
fora. The EU defines transparency differently than the U.S. EU takes comments
after the decision has been made; this is not transparency. The EU is trying to
change risk assessment with the precautionary principle as it relates to
sustainable development. The EU is pushing through UNEP Biosafety programs to
encourage developing countries to adopt the EU sustainable development model.
U.S. must communicate with and involve like-minded countries to counter this
trend.
13. EU directives contain technical requirements and
its very difficult to change EU directives. Problems often arise because
requirements spelled out in EU directives are in place for a long time, even
though codes and technologies change. The EU system is very closed. Its
difficult to provide input early in the process, and input provided later in the
process is rarely addressed in the final product.
14. The EU requires
"metric-only" labeling on packaging. The U.S. has a deferral on the requirement
until 2010, but this remains a problem for the long-term. The EU is the only
country that prohibits non-metric labeling. Non-EU manufacturers should be given
the flexibility to use dual labeling as long as theyre meeting the metric
requirement.
15. There are some areas where the U.S. and EU can
agree (e.g. fuel tanks for boats). We should develop MRAs where harmonization
exists and marks are compatible, for example, there should be an MRA that
recognizes the U.S. Coast Guard mark and the CE mark.
|
- [USMA:34987] Roundtable on Transatlantic Standards Issue... Daniel
- [USMA:34988] Re: Roundtable on Transatlantic Standa... Philip S Hall
- [USMA:34992] Re: Roundtable on Transatlantic St... Stephen Humphreys
