WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/23
15 November 2002
(02-6339)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
ON SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
The present report is submitted on the responsibility of the Chairperson, Mrs. Alberto-Chau
Huu, as agreed by the Committee at its regular meeting on 7-8 November 2002.
_______________
1. As was noted in the letter from the Chairperson of the SPS Committee to the CTD in January
2002, the SPS Committee first undertook systematic discussions regarding special and differential
treatment in the context of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the "SPS Agreement") in the course of its first review of the operation and implementation of theSPS Agreement in 1998-1999.  The concerns of developing countries, and the implementation of the
special and differential provisions of the SPS Agreement have been a standing agenda item for all
regular meetings of the SPS Committee since that time.
2. In the course of the Committee meetings during 2002, no specific papers were submitted by
Members for the agenda item on "Implementation of the Provisions for Special and Differential
Treatment".  At the 19-21 March meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat drew attention to the
joint statement issued at Doha by the Directors-General of the WTO, FAO, WHO, OIE and the WorldBank with respect to the SPS Agreement, and to the discussions among officials of these
organizations of a draft paper by the FAO on a co nceptual framework for capacity building in the
areas of food safety, animal and plant health.  The discussions went beyond the need for participation
in standard-setting to the capacity to implement these standards.  The need to involve the private
sector had been identified, as well as enforcement of the capacity of developing countries to ensurethe safety of products which they imported.  The organizations shared information on the various
training materials which they had developed, and recognized the need to include regional and national
donor organizations in discussions at some future date.  At the 7-8 November meeting, the Secretariat
informed the Committee about the new Standards and Trade Development Facility, established at the
WTO with funding from the World Bank.  This Facility, which will be operated collaboratively withthe OIE, FAO, WHO, Codex and IPPC, is designed to further cooperation among these organizations
in providing capacity-building assistance to developing countries in the context of the SPS
Agreement.
3. The issue of special and differential treatment was also specifically addressed in the context
of the Committee's work on transparency provisions.  At the 19-21 March meeting, the SPSCommittee adopted revised recommendations regarding the implementation of the transparency
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  In the course of these discussions, two proposals specifically
related to special and differential treatment were considered.  One was the proposal from Brazil on
transparency related to special and differential treatment, and particularly the need for Members to re-
notify measures when the scope of a measure was changed in such a way that trade from developingG/SPS/23
Page 2
countries could be adversely affected.  The revised notification procedures adopted by the Committee
recommend that a revision of a notification should be submitted in such circumstances, and a further
period for comments provided.
4. Also in the context of the revised notification procedures, the representative of Egypt, with
the support of a number of developing country Members, proposed that a new box on special anddifferential treatment be included in the standard notification format.  He suggested that any specific
provisions of benefit to developing countries contained in the proposed regulation being notified
could be identified in this box, including the names of developing countries which might be affected
by the proposed measure and the availability of relevant technical assistance.  Several Members raised
the concern that few regulations contained explicit provisions for special and differential treatment,
however, such treatment might nonetheless be provided in response to specific problems raised by
developing country exporters.  They noted the need for additional time to consider this new proposal.
5. In discussing this proposal at the 25-26 June meeting of the SPS Committee, Egypt suggested
that one form of special and differential treatment could be the listing of the names of any developing
country Members affected by the measure.  Another form of special and differential treatment could
be the application of international standards, or when these did not exist, the continued application of
previous measures on imports from developing countries until such time as technical assistancepermitted developing countries to meet the new requirements.  Finally, developed countries could
identify the effects of their measures on exports of developing countries and least developed
countries.  This information was already suggested, to some extent, in boxes 4 and 6 of the existing
notification format.  Egypt also proposed that this information be provided in the case of emergency
notifications.  Furthermore, developed countries should also provide technical assistance to helpdeveloping and least-developed countries comply w ith new or modified emergency measures through
a period of 6 months.
6. Some Members expressed concerns about the introduction of new boxes in the notification
format that might rarely be filled, and noted that other existing boxes already addressed the Egyptian
concerns.  An alternative approach suggested by Canada was that special and differential provisionsprovided in response to difficulties identified by developing countries should be identified in the
addendum format used to notify the final measure.  Some Members noted that the regulatory nature of
SPS measures, and the obligation that such measures be no more restrictive to trade than necessary to
ensure health protection, limited the scope of special and differential treatment in this area.
7. At the 7-8 November meeting, the SPS Committee discussed the proposal from Canada to
address the concerns identified by Egypt.  Canada proposed that special and differential treatment be
notified ex post in the form of an addendum, i.e. once the importing Member and the developingexporting Member had found a solution to a problem identified by the exporting country.  Such a
solution might take the form of special and differential treatment, technical assistance, or an
adjustment to the measure on an MFN basis.  Although an importing country could probably not
identify possibilities for special and differential treatment in advance, it could try to find a solution to
a problem identified by a developing country.  Notification of this solution might encourage otherMembers to address similar concerns.  Unless a developing country expressed an interest and
identified problems related to a notified measure, their concerns could not be addressed.  A number of
Members supported the proposal by Canada, however, others expressed the view that it addressed
only the issue of transparency of special and differential treatment which had been provided.  These
Members requested further consideration of how information on special and differential treatmentcould be made at the time a measure was notified.
8. As previously reported, the discussion of the concerns of developing countries has in the past
focussed primarily on the issue of the implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement.  The SPS
Committee adopted a decision to facilitate the implementation of Article 4 in October 2001G/SPS/23
Page 3
(G/SPS/19), and in March 2002 the Committee agreed on a programme of further work with regard to
the recognition of equivalence (G/SPS/20).  The Committee has followed this programme of further
work during its meetings of 2002.  At its 25-26 June meeting, the Committee adopted a format for the
notification of agreements recognizing equivalence.  Several proposals for the clarification of
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Decision on equivalence were considered by the Committee at its Marchand June meetings, and texts clarifying paragraphs 5 and 6 were adopted at the November meeting.
9. In the course of 2002, no Member requested a time-limited exception with respect to any
obligations under the SPS Agreement, as provided for in Article 10.3.
__________