. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/123
25 October 2002
(02-5897)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  Spanish
CLARIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE DECISION
ON EQUIVALENCE
Comments by Argentina on the Document Prepared by
the Secretariat (G/SPS/W/121)
Document G/SPS/W/121, prepared by the Secretariat, outlines developments in regard to the
above, comments on the presentations made by the various countries on the subject of historical trade
and sets out a number of recommendations.  Argentina considers that this document has properly
incorporated the key positions and arguments put forward by the Members in the meetings of theSPS Committee and that it is of prime importance as a tool for advancing work on the regulation of
Article 4 of the SPS Agreement.
Argentina agrees with the recommendations set forth in the document, and especially the
recommendation that the international reference organizations be encouraged to initiate, complete orapprove work aimed at the effective implementation of equivalence, having special regard to
historical trade information.
Without prejudice to the above, Argentina proposes the inclusion of recommendations
relating to the work proposed and follow-up on the issue of equivalence in the SPS Committee, based
on the considerations outlined below.
1. Paragraph 5 of Decision G/SPS /19 on the Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement
states that:  "The importing Member should accel erate its procedure for determining equivalence in
respect of those products which it has historically imported from the exporting Member".
2. Several Members having indicated that paragraph 5 should be clarified in order to ensure the
effective implementation of simplified procedures, the Programme for Further Work adopted inDecision G/SPS/20 foresees the "consideration of draft guidance for accelerated procedures for the
recognition of equivalence of products historically  traded, on the basis of categorization of trade
patterns and risks" at the 7-8 November 2002 meeting of the Committee.
The "consideration and, if possible, adoption of guidance for accelerated procedures for the
recognition of equivalence of products historically traded" is scheduled for the first meeting in 2003.
3. Paragraph 5 of Decision 19 contains a guideline or recommendation but does not specify the
elements needed to conduct bilateral negotiations on equivalence according to agreed parameters.
4. The rules developed by the relevant international organizations will provide extremely
important technical references for addressing the sanitary or phytosanitary aspects of equivalence of
each type of product (food safety, animal or plant health); but although they highlight the need to layspecial emphasis on historical trade information, they do not constitute the "guidance for simplifying
procedures" requested by the developing countries and incorporated in the Committee's Programme.G/SPS/W/123
Page 2
5. The first thing that an exporting country needs to know in assessing whether or not to engage
in an equivalence determination process is the procedure to be followed in making such a
determination.  This will enable it to assess the time and costs involved and hence to decide whether
or not to initiate the process.
If country X exports potatoes under the measure in force in destination country Z and wishes
to export the goods under its own measure, or if country X has difficulty in securing access for its
potatoes under the measure in force in destination country Z and wishes to resolve the problem by
obtaining recognition of the equivalence of its own measure, it needs to know what to demonstrate to
the importer so that the latter can determine the equivalence of that measure.  This will enable
country X to assess the time and costs involved and hence to decide whether or not to initiate the
process.
6. It is also important to ensure legal predictabi lity.  Although the guidelines laid down in the
Programme will provide general guidance, parameters need to be established in respect of
requirements by the importing country, depending on the information available and the type of
product and product risk involved.
Otherwise, equivalence is not an advisable option for the developing and least-developed
countries.  They should not initiate an equivalence procedure if there are no guidelines for:
• Determining the procedure required by the importer;
• assessing whether the procedure proposed by the importer is appropriate;
• assessing the cost-benefit aspect of engaging in such a procedure.
7. The international reference organizations and the task they have undertaken will therefore
provide the technical framework needed to supplement the "guidance for accelerated procedures for
the recognition of equivalence of products historically traded", but this will not in and of itself
respond to the developing countries' concerns regarding the implementation of Article 4 of the
SPS Agreement.
PROPOSALS
• To incorporate, in the set of recommendations already made, a recommendation, to be
included as Recommendation 2, reaffirming the need for the Committee to approve
"guidance for accelerated procedures for the recognition of equivalence of products
historically traded", as foreseen in the Programme, within the scheduled time-frame.
• To incorporate, as Recommendation 4, a paragraph providing for follow-up and
analysis, in the SPS Committee, of the guidelines on the judgement of equivalence
developed by the international reference organizations currently referred to under
point 2.
• To incorporate a final Recommendation 5 providing for consideration of any
notifications received regarding agreements  recognizing equivalence, as foreseen in
the Programme, to enable the Committee to examine the question of practical
implementation of Article 4.
__________