WTO DEMARCHE REQUEST - U.S./EC TAFT PROPOSAL

UNCLAS WELLINGTON 000046 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS EAP/ANP, EEB FOR AARON SCHIBE, STATE PASS TO USTR FOR B NORTON, J WEISS, COMMERCE FOR E BRZYTWA E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ETRD WTRO ECON NZ SUBJECT: WTO DEMARCHE REQUEST - U.S./EC TAFT PROPOSAL REF: SECSTATE 12905 ¶1. (SBU) Econoff together with EU's Charge' d'Affaire George Cunningham, jointly delivered reftel demarche points to Mark Trainor, Deputy Director of the Goods Trade Negotiations Division and Andrew White of the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) inviting GNZ to join as co-sponsor of the U.S./EC textiles, apparel, footwear and travel goods (TAFT) Proposal. Trainor's initial response was that while New Zealand could see some benefit in this kind of proposal, and as their own forestry non-tariff barrier (NTB) proposal demonstrates, they share the goal of clarifying the implementation of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement. It was apparent in the course of the demarche that there had been considerable internal discussion both within MFAT and with their Mission in Geneva on this topic prior to the meeting and that the text of the TAFT Proposal had been carefully studied. ¶2. (U) In response, Mr. Trainor began by explaining that there were a number of issues which have precluded GNZ from supporting the U.S./EC proposal thus far. His concerns are summarized as follows: -- that this proposal would elevate ("prioritize") a number of types of labeling (e.g. country of origin, fiber content) to a level above safety labeling. He said that MFAT has some difficulty in seeing the justification for giving special status to, e.g., country of origin labeling ahead of, e.g., safety labeling. He is concerned that the proposal would provide a "safe harbor" for those kinds of labeling, where they would automatically be deemed consistent with the TBT Agreement. On the other hand, safety labeling would have to be proven to be "no more restrictive than necessary" to be consistent with the Agreement. -- New Zealand requires that some children's nightwear carry a stand alone high fire danger label. They are concerned that this would be incompatible with Article 4.3 of the U.S./EC proposal. -- MFAT has a more general concern with Article 4.2 - while the provision does not run counter to New Zealand's current approach to labeling; the way it is worded may become problematic in the future. For example, if a firm wants to label their clothing as "carbon neutral" or "sustainable" or with another environmental claim, it would be important for consumers to be able to trust such a label. This could require third party certification. MFAT is interested to know what kind of measures the U.S./EC are trying to capture with this provision, and if it could be amended to take account of this issue. -- MFAT is interested in articles 5 and 6 of the proposal. Can the U.S./EC confirm that they are designed to tighten the requirements around making TBT notifications around totally chlorine free (TCF) labeling requirements (i.e. to remove the need for: a) the measure to not be based on international standards and b) the need for the measure to have a significant effect on the trade of other members in order for the notification obligation to kick in). If so, why does U.S/EC feel those requirements should be tightened? ¶3. (U) Post seeks clarification to the issues raised by MFAT in hope of allying their concerns and thus securing their support for the U.S./EC TAFT proposal. MCCORMICK