RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/229
23 February 2001
(01-0917)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
CRITERIA FOR OBSERVER STATUS
Note by the Secretariat
1. At the November 2000 meeting, Members agreed that it would be appropriate for the SPS
Committee to discuss the criteria for the granting of observer status which the Committee had
previously adopted, to see whether any modifications were warranted in light of the intervening
experience of the Committee with observers.  The Committee agreed to discuss this issue first at an
informal meeting, and also at the March 2001 meeting.  The list of intergovernmental organizations
which currently have observer status in the SPS Committee, or have requested such status, iscontained in G/SPS/W/78/Rev.1 (attached to this note).
2. Paragraph 7 of the Working Procedures of the Committee (G/SPS/1) reads as follows:
"Representatives of the FAO/WHO Code x Alimentarius Commission (Codex), the
Office international des epizooties (OIE) and the FAO Secretariat fo r the International
Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) will be invited to attend meetings as observers,pending the final decision by the General Council.  Representatives of other
international intergovernmental organizations may be invited by the Committee to
attend meetings as observers in accordance w ith the guidelines to be adopted by the
General Council.  Notwithstanding the above, the Committee may, as appropriate,
decide to hold restricted sessions w ith participation of Members only."
3. At its first meeting, in line with the Working Procedures, the Committee granted observer
status to the Codex, OIE and IPPC.  Observer status was granted to FAO and WHO in June 1995;  to
ISO and ITC in November 1995;  and to UNCTAD in March 1996.
4. Following considerable discussion of the issue, in November 1998 the Secretariat was asked
to prepare a background document summarizing concerns raised by some Members regarding the
grant of observer status to other intergovernmental organizations and the criteria which had beensuggested as most appropriate (G/SPS/W/98, attached to this note).  At its meeting in March 1999, the
Committee agreed to apply the criteria identified in paragraph 7 of G/SPS/W/98 in deciding on
requests for observer status, and also agreed that, as an interim step, such requests would be granted
only on an ad hoc, meeting-by-meeting basis. Paragraph 7 reads:
"Suggested criteria for considering requests for observer status included the mandate,
scope and area of work covered by the organization.  Observer status should be
granted to organizations which objectively contributed to the functioning and
implementation of the SPS Agreement.1  Another criteria identified was reciprocity."
(underline in original)
                                                     
1 The position of the European Communities is developed in greater detail in document G/SPS/W/95, "International Observer
Organizations", circulated on 23 November 1998.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 2
Following this decision, organizations whose request for observer status were still pending were
requested to provide information relevant to the criteria identified in paragraph 7.  The information
provided is contained in G/SPS/GEN/121 and Add.1 (attached).
5.  In November 1999, the Committee agreed to grant observer status, on an ad hoc  basis, to the
ACP Group, EFTA, IICA, OECD, OIRSA and SELA.  All of these organizations have been invited to
attend all SPS Committee meetings since November 1999, with the decision being renewed at each
meeting.
6. Despite extensive discussions, the Committee has not reached agreement on the request from
the OIV.  Neither has consensus been reached regarding the more recent request from the APCC.
7. The General Council has so far failed to reach consensus with regard to the observer status of
international intergovernmental organizations.  While some Members support the acceptance of
individual organizations on the basis of their own me rit, others argue the need to reach agreement on
all requests as a package.  At its December 2000 meeting, the General Council agreed to revert to this
issue in 2001.  The relevant paragraphs of the last General Council Meeting (WT/GC/M/61) are
attached to this note.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 3
ATTACHMENT
WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/78/Rev.1
5 April 2000
(00-1377)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Requests for Observer Status in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Revision
This document lists the international intergov ernmental organizations which have requested
observer status in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.1
I. International Intergovernmental Organizations  having observer status on a regular basis
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
FAO International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
FAO/WHO Joint Codex Alimen tarius Commission (Codex)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)*
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
International Trade Centre (ITC)
Office international des épizooties (OIE)
United Nations Conference on Tr ade and Development (UNCTAD)
World Bank*
World Health Organization (WHO)
II. International Intergovernmental Organizations having observer status on an ad hoc  (meeting-
by-meeting) basis
African, Caribbean and Pacifi c Group of States (ACP Group)
European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
                                                     
     1Members wishing to consult the communications sent to the Secretariat by the international intergovernmental
organizations are invited to contact Ms. Gretchen St anton (Agriculture and Commodities Division), office 1033.
     *Observer status in WTO subsidiary bodies provided through the WTO Agreements with the Fund and the World
Bank (WT/L/194 and WT/L/195).G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 4
Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation (IICA)
Organization for Economic Co-ope ration and Development (OECD)
Regional International Organization for Plan t Protection and Anim al Health (OIRSA)
Latin American Economic System (SELA)
III. International Intergovernmental Organizations whose request is pending
Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC)
International Vine and Wine Office (OIV)G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 5
RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/98
19 February 1999
(99-0661)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
Note by the Secretariat
Introduction
1. At present, the following international intergovernmental organizations have regular observer
status in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("SPS Committee"):  F ood and
Agriculture Organization (FAO);  FAO International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC);  FAO/WHO
Joint Codex Alimentarius Commissi on (Codex);  International Organization for Standardization (ISO);
International Trade Centre (ITC);  Office internati onal des épizooties (OIE);  United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD);  World Hea lth Organization (WHO), the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).
2. At the June 1998 meeting of the SPS Committee the Chairman recalled that at its March 1998
meeting the Committee had agreed to hold informal consultations with the aim of identifying criteria
in order to assist Members in reaching decisions on pending requests for observer status in the SPS
Committee.
3. Subsequent to the June 1998 meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat contacted those
international organizations which had requested observer status in the SPS Committee, and requestedthem to provide more specific information regardin g their work in this area. The response of the
Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (OIRSA) was circulated to Members in
October 1998;  those from the Office international de la vigne et du vin (OIV), the European Free
Trade Association (EFTA), the Latin American Economic System (SELA), the European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and the Inter-American Institute forCooperation on Agriculture (IICA) were circulated before the September 1998 meeting.
4. At the November 1998 meeting of the SPS Committee, an informal discussion was held
regarding this matter.  At request of the SPS Committee, the following summarizes the issues raised
by Members at that meeting.
General Council Guidelines5. The existing Guidelines on Observer Status for International Intergovernmental Organizations
in the WTO were adopted by the General Council on 25 July 1996 (see the "General Council
Guidelines", attached to this note).
1  The Secretariat confirmed that while there were requests for
                                                     
1 "Observer Status for International Intergovernmental Organizations in the WTO" [footnote omitted], WT/L/161, adopted by the
General Council on 25 July 1996.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 6
observer status pending at the General Council level, the General Council Guidelines allowed for
individual Committees to move ahead on their own.2
Criteria
6. Some Members maintained that the legal decisions already taken under the General Council
were an appropriate basis for developing criteria for dealing with requests for observer status in theSPS Committee.  They noted that it was important for the SPS Committee to develop such criteria
given the growing list of candidates for observer status and the fact that Members would inevitably be
faced with situations where such requests would have to be turned down.  Rejections should be based
on the objectives of the SPS Agreement and the guidelines already approved by the General Council.
7. Suggested criteria for considering requests for observer status included the mandate, scope
and area of work covered by the organization.  Observer status should be granted to organizations
which objectively contributed to the functioning and implementation of the SPS Agreement.3  Another
criteria identified was reciprocity.
8. Some Members were concerned that it must be clear that observers were present only as
representatives of their organizations, otherwise there was a danger of some Members being
represented both through their delegations and also by the observers.  However, it was noted that aninter-governmental organization was naturally made up of governments.  Therefore, even though the
person attending a meeting represented the institution, the institution itself was made up of
governments, who were in most cases also WTO Members.
9. In respect of limitations on the participation of observer organizations and in line with the
General Council Guideline 8, several Members suggested that observers could be permitted only at
regular meetings of the SPS Committee and further that these observers not be allowed to take thefloor unless they were specifically invited to do so by the Chairperson, with agreement from the
Members.  Furthermore, these Members considered that observers did not have the right to circulate
papers or to make proposals and could not participate in the decision-making process.
10. Other Members were concerned about the Committee examining specific criteria for observer
status while the same issue was being discussed at a broader, systemic level.
Ad hoc observer status
11. Given the lack of agreement on pending requests for observer status, some Members
suggested that, as an interim step, such requests could be granted on an ad hoc  basis.  These observers
would be specifically invited, by the Secretariat, to meetings of the SPS Committee either until they
were granted regular observer status or until any Member objected to the presence of the ad hoc
observers at a meeting.  One Member suggested that this approach would permit invitation of any
particular observer only for selected meetings or even only for the consideration of specific items onthe agenda of a particular meeting.
12. Several Members who were not prepared to agree to granting regular observer status as long
as there were issues still pending in the Genera l Council on this matter indicated that they could
consider the possibility of ad hoc  observer status.  However, this was subject to a clear understanding
of how ad hoc  observers would interact with the Committee.  It would be necessary to clarify whether
                                                     
2 General Council Guideline 4: "Requests for observer status shall be considered on a case-by-case basis by  each WTO body to
which such a request is addressed ...". [emphasis added]
3 The position of the European Communities is developed in greater detail in document G/SPS/W/95, "International Observer
Organizations", circulated on 23 November 1998.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 7
the basis for participation of ad hoc observers was the same as for the current, regular observers to the
SPS Committee.  Most important, in their view, was avoiding such a large number of ad hoc
observers that the orderly working of the Committee was made difficult.
Regional Organizations
13. One Member stressed  that regional organizations were particularly important for many
developing countries in that they facilitated their member governments' understanding and
implementation of WTO Agreements.
14. Several Members argued that the regional plant protection organizations should be considered
as a special case.  The regional organizations operating within the framework of the IPPC were
specifically referred to in the SPS Agreement4 and thus fell within the scope of the General Council
Guidelines.  These Members maintained that although these organizations did not have a global
membership, their work within the IPPC umbrella meant that they should be granted observer status.These organizations had to be given special attention considering their particular structure and
working procedures, and the need to develop plant protection standards on a regional basis due to the
major effect geography and climatic factors had on plants.
15. Other Members noted that the regional plant protection organizations were constituent parts
of the IPPC.  As such, they could be invited by the IPPC to attend SPS Committee meetings as part of
the IPPC's delegation.  Since the IPPC itself was a regular observer in the SPS Committee, there was
no need for its constituent organizations to be invited separately.
Further consideration by the SPS Committee
16. Some Members suggested that at its next meeting in March 1999, the SPS Committee should
reach agreement on how to handle pending and new requests for observer status.  Failing this, a fulldiscussion of the subject should be permitted in the formal meeting so that Members' positions were
appropriately recorded.  The usefulness of Members' submitting positions on the matter in writing was
also stressed.
                                                     
4  The preamble of the SPS Agreement (6th indent) states:
"Desiring  to further the use of harmonized sanitary and phytosanitary measures between
Members, on the basis of international standards, guidelines and recommendations developed
by the relevant international organizations, including the  Codex Alimentarius Commission, the
International Office of Epizootics, and the relevant international and regional organizations
operating within the framework of the International Plant Protection Convention, without
requiring Members to change their appropriate level of protection of human, animal or plantlife or health;" [underlining added]
These organizations are also mentioned in Article 3.4, Article 12.3 and Annex A (para. 3) of the SPS Agreement.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 8
Attachment 1
(WT/L/161, 25 July 1996, Annex 3, pp. 16-17)
OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WTO1
1. The purpose of observer status for international intergovernmental organizations (hereinafter referred to as
"organizations") in the WTO is to enable these organizations to  follow discussions therein on matters of direct interest to the m.
2. Requests for observer status shall accordingly be considered from organizations which have competence and a direct
interest in trade policy matters, or which, pursuant to paragraph V:1 of the WTO Agreement, have responsibilities related to
those of the WTO.
3. Requests for observer status shall be made in writing to the WTO body in which such status is sought, and shall
indicate the nature of the work of the organization and the reasons for its interest in being accorded such status.  Requests f or
observer status from organizations shall not, however, be considered for meetings  of the Committee on Budget, Finance and
Administration or of the Dispute Settlement Body.2
4. Requests for observer status shall be considered on a case-by-case basis by each WTO body to which such a request is
addressed, taking into account such factors as the nature of work of the organization concerned, the nature of its membership,
the number of WTO Members in the organization, reciprocity with respect to access to proceedings, documents and other
aspects of observership, and whether the organization has been associated in the past with the work of the CONTRACTING
PARTIES to GATT 1947.
5. In addition to organizations that request, and are granted,  observer status, other organizations may attend meetings of
the Ministerial Conference, the General Council or subsidiary bodies on the specific invitation of the Ministerial Conference, the
General Council or the subsidiary body concerned, as the case may be.  Invitations may also be extended, as appropriate and on
a case-by-case basis, to specific organizations to follow particular issues within a body in an observer capacity.
6. Organizations with which the WTO has entered into a formal arrangement for cooperation and consultation shall be
accorded observer status in such bodies as may be determined by that arrangement.
7. Organizations accorded observer status in a particular WTO body shall not automatically be accorded such status in
other WTO bodies.
8. Representatives of organizations accorded observer status may be invited to speak at meetings of the bodies to which
they are observers normally after Members of that body have spoken.  The right to speak does not include the right to circulate
papers or to make proposals, unless an organization is specifically invited to do so, nor to participate in decision-making.
9. Observer organizations shall receive copies of the main WTO documents series and of other documents series relating
to the work of the subsidiary bodies which they attend as observers.  They may receive such additional documents as may be
specified by the terms of any formal arrangements for cooperation between them and the WTO.
10. If for any one-year period after the date of the grant of observer status, there has been no attendance by the observer
organization, such status shall cease.  In the case of sessions of the Ministerial Conference, this period shall be two years.
__________________
1  These guidelines shall apply also to other organizations referred to by name in the WTO Agreement.
2  In the case of the IMF and the World Bank, their requests for attendance as observers to the DSB will be acted upon in accord ance with the
arrangements to be concluded between the WTO and these two organizationsG/SPS/GEN/229
Page 9
WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/121
15 June 1999
(99-2412)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
APPLICANTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
Note by the Secretariat
As requested at the meeting of March 1999 the Secretariat has summarized the information
provided by the various bodies seeking observer status in the SPS Committee.  This summary focuseson the membership, mandate and scope of work of each applicant, identifies potential contributions to
the work of the SPS Committee, and reciprocity.  Information regarding observer status in other WTO
bodies has also been included.
I. OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA VIGNE ET DU VIN (OIV)
1. Membership
Membership is open to all states.  Current membership (46):
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
AustriaBelgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Bulgaria
ChileCyprus
Czech Republic
DenmarkFinland
France
Georgia
GermanyGreece
Hungary
Israel
Italy
LebanonLuxemburg
Mexico
MoldaviaMorocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
NorwayPeru
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovak RepublicSlovenia
South Africa
SpainSweden
Switzerland
Syria
TunisiaTurkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguayex-Yugoslavia Serbia,
  Montenegro)
2. Mandate, Scope and Area of Work
The OIV's work includes:
- setting international standards related to wine and wine products, including those
concerning food safety, nutrition, toxicology, pesticide residues and contaminants;
- harmonizing methods of analysis and certification;- organizing plant protection conferences about diseases which affect wine;
- fighting specific diseases;  and
- protecting appellations of origin.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 10
In recent years, there has been special focus on su rplus control, maintaining diversity, environmental
protection, relations between Europe and America, and on ways of facilitating international trade.
3. Contribution to the Work of the SPS Committee
The OIV has great experience in the areas of consumer and plant protection as it relates to
wine.  The OIV sets international standards related to wine, and its autonomous competence in this
area is recognized by FAO.  Codex standards do not cover wine and alcoholic beverages in general.
The OIV wishes to be informed about the work of the SPS Committee, and offer the skills of its
expert groups if necessary.
The OIV has also requested observer status in the General Council, the Council for TRIPS,
and the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade.
4. Reciprocity
The OIV is offering to grant the SPS Committee Secretariat observer status, which would
allow it to participate in the work of the Gene ral Assembly, Commissions and Sub-Commissions, and
groups of experts dealing with SPS issues.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 11
II. AFRICAN, CARIBBEAN AND PACIFIC GROUP OF STATES (ACP GROUP)
1. Membership
The ACP Group has 71 members, of which 48 are in Africa, 15 in the Caribbean, and 8 in the
Pacific.
2. Mandate, Scope and Area of Work
The ACP Group's work includes:
- to coordinate the activities of the ACP States in the application of the Lomé
Convention;
- to contribute to the development of greater and closer economic, social and cultural
relations among developing countries and to that end, ensure cooperation between theACP States in the fields of trade, science and technology, industry, transport and
communications, education, training and research, information and communication,
the environment, demography and human resources;  and
- to contribute to the promotion of effective regional, interregional and intra-ACP
cooperation among the ACP States and between developing countries in general, andto strengthen the regional organizations to which they belong.
3. Contribution to the Work of the SPS Committee
The ACP Group organized seven regional seminars on the results of the Uruguay Round in
Cooperation with the WTO Secretariat and the European Commission in 1996.
Previously, the ACP Group had observer status in the GATT Contracting Parties, and the
Council of Representatives.  It currently has observer status in the Committees on Balance-of-
Payments Restrictions, Trade and Development, Trade and Environment, Market Access, Rules of
Origin and Customs Valuation. It has been granted ad hoc observer status in the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices, Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Safeguards, and Technical Barriers to
Trade, and has furthermore requested observer status in the General Council, the Council for Trade in
Goods, the Council for Trade in Services, and the Committees on Agriculture, Import Licensing, and
Trade-Related Investment Measures.
4. Reciprocity
The WTO Secretariat has participated in preparatory seminars for ACP Senior Officials prior
to the Singapore and Geneva Ministerial Conferences and has access to documents or proceedings of
meetings organized by the ACP institutions.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 12
III. EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION (EFTA)
1. Membership (4):
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland
2. Mandate, Scope and Area of Work
EFTA's work includes:
- monitoring and management of free trade relations between the EFTA member States
on the basis of the Stockholm Convention, the legal foundation of the Association;
- three of the EFTA States and the European Union have signed the Agreement on a
European Economic Area (EEA), which entered into force on 1 January 1994.
Through this Agreement the EEA EFTA States participate in the Single Market, withregard to the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons.  In addition, this
agreement covers non-economic cooperation in areas such as research and
development, education, social policy and the environment;
- developing and managing relationships with a large number of non-EU countries;
and
- monitoring and managing the relationships between EFTA States, managing and
coordinating the EFTA Agreement, as well as developing and managing relations
with a considerable number of non-EU countries.  All this involves elements which
are closely related to the work of the SPS Committee.
EFTA's aim in the sanitary and phytosanitary field is to avoid unnecessary obstacles to trade,
and to create transparency and consistency.  All the work of the SPS Committee is of relevance to and
will create a framework for ongoing important EEA activities.  Of special interest to EFTA is the SPS
Committee's work on risk assessment and risk management, use of international standards and
consistency in the application of the concept of an appropriate level of protection.
3. Contribution to the Work of the SPS Committee
EFTA coordinates SPS issues in the EFTA/EEA region.  Observer status is important to
ensure harmonization of the interpretation of WTO rules and provisions.
Previously, EFTA had observer status in the GATT Contracting Parties, the Council of
Representatives, and the GATT Committee on Trade and Development.  Currently it has observerstatus in the Trade Policy Review Body, the Committees on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions,
Regional Trade Agreements, Trade and Development, Trade and Environment, and Rules of Origin.
It has ad hoc observer status in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, and has requested
observer status in the General Council, the C ouncil for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in
Services, and the Council for TRIPS.
4. Reciprocity
There has been good cooperation and information exchange between the WTO and EFTA
Secretariats.  EFTA provides the WTO Secretariat with general information as well as its annual
report.  All new EFTA Free Trade Agreements are notified to the WTO.  All SPS-related EEA rulesare made public in the EEA supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 13
IV. INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR COOPERATION ON AGRICULTURE (IICA)
1. Membership (34):
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
BahamasBarbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
ColombiaCosta Rica
DominicaDominican Republic
Ecuador
El SalvadorGrenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
MexicoNicaragua
PanamaParaguay
Peru
St. Kitts and NevisSt. Lucia
St. Vincent and the
  Grenadines
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
UruguayVenezuela
2. Mandate, Scope and Area of Work
IICA's technical cooperation programme focuses on policies and trade; science, technology
and natural resources; agricultural health; and sustainable rural development.  In the area of
agricultural health and food safety, IICA's long term objectives are to ensure that the countries of the
Americas are in the best possible position as regards agricultural health and food safety, so that their
animal and plant-based products comply with the strictest health and hygiene standards and can, as a
result, compete advantageously on the international market.  IICA's core strategy for obtaining this
objective is to contribute to the modernization of the organization, infrastructure and operation of
national agricultural health systems, and cooperate with them so that they can meet their regional and
international commitments.
Critical strategic areas in the field of agricultural health are:- modernization of national agricultural health systems, fostering the active
participation of the private sector;
- practical application and harmonization of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in
international trade;
- forewarnings and action on emergency issues;  and
- strengthening the inter-American and regional approaches.
3. Contribution to the Work of the SPS Committee
In 1987, the Inter-American Board of Agriculture, IICA's governing body, expanded IICA's
mandate to include monitoring the Uruguay Round ne gotiations, evaluating their implications for the
agrifood sector in the region, and assisting member countries in their compliance.  Recently, this
mandate was renewed to offer technical cooperation services to member countries in preparation forcontinuing the agricultural reform process in the WTO and future negotiations.
IICA also has requested observer status in the Committee on Agriculture.
4. Reciprocity
The WTO Secretariat has broad access to IICA documents and proceedings, and has
participated in several technical meetings and workshops organized by IICA.  IICA offers to grant the
WTO observer status in its governing Inter-American Board of Agriculture.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 14
V. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
(OECD)
1. Membership (29):
Australia France Japan Poland
Austria Germany Korea PortugalBelgium Greece Luxembourg Spain
Canada Hungary Mexico Sweden
Czech Republic Iceland Netherlands Switzerland
Denmark Ireland New Zealand Turkey
Finland Italy Norway United States
United Kingdom
2. Mandate, Scope and Area of Work
The OECD is an intergovernmental, interdisciplinary organization with expertise in a broad
range of economic and trade-related fields.  One of its key objectives, as reiterated by OECD
Members at their meeting in April 1998, is to provide support for a strong multilateral trading system.This gives the OECD an immediate interest in most of the policy and research activities being
undertaken by the WTO (and formerly the GATT).  OECD produces analytical work to help
governments define their policies and to facilitate the negotiations of international agreements,
including the preparations for future multilateral trade negotiations.  In a number of key areas OECD
serves as a forum aiming at harmonized policies and instruments for their implementation.  Forinstance, in the context of the OECD Council De cisions on the Mutual Acceptance of Data in the
Assessment of Chemicals, Principles for Good Laboratory Practices, as well as Test Guidelines, have
been developed by the OECD since 1981 and are widely accepted and used by OECD members and
non-members.  Similarly, the last OECD Agriculture Ministers' meeting endorsed analytical work to
identify and analyse existing and new policy approaches to address issues related inter alia  to food
safety and to provide support to the multilateral trading system.
3. Contribution to the Work of the SPS Committee
OECD activities of direct relevance to the objectives of the SPS Agreement include:
- OECD work on Mutual Acceptance of Data in the Assessment of Chemicals ,
including the Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals  and the Principles of Good
Laboratory Practices  (GLP); these are used as standards for testing the safety of
products (chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, etc.).  Moreover, the Procedures for
monitoring compliance with GLP  are used for assessing the conformity of testing of
products against GLP standards;
- The OECD Pesticide Programme  aims at harmonizing pesticide review procedures,
sharing the work by member countries on pesticide evaluation and finding new
approaches to risk reduction;
- OECD work on biotechnology: the trade-related issues which arise in the agro-food
sector are addressed in the Working Group on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight
in Biotechnology.  Also relevant are activities like the OECD Ad Hoc Experts
Meeting on Assessing the Safety of Novel Foods, organized in December 1995 and
October 1998.  In these meetings WHO and FAO were invited in their capacity as
managers of the Codex Alimentarius Commission; andG/SPS/GEN/229
Page 15
- OECD work on seed certification: In the framework of the OECD Schemes for the
certification of seeds, National Designated Authorities control the health status of
seeds before certification.
Previously, the OECD had observer status in  the GATT Contracting Parties, the Council of
Representatives, and the GATT Committee on Trade and Development.   Currently it has observer
status in the General Council, the Trade Policy Review Body, the Council for Trade in Goods, the
Council for TRIPS, and the Committees on Agriculture, Balance-of-Payments Restrictions, Trade and
Development, Trade and Environment, Rules of Origin, Technical Barriers to Trade and Trade-
Related Investment Measures.  It has ad hoc observer status in the Committees on Anti-Dumping
Practices, Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and Safeguards.  It has requested observer status in
the Council for Trade in Services and the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.
4. Reciprocity
Since the OECD was created in 1961, its relations with the GATT have been based on:
- An arrangement between the OECD Secretary-General and the Executive Secretary of
the GATT to ensure liaison between the Secretariats of the two organizations; and
- Mutual observership between the two organizations, permitting attendance at most
meetings of mutual interest.
The GATT Secretariat was regularly represented by an observer at meetings of the Trade
Committee, the Agriculture Committee, the Joint Wo rking Party of those two bodies, the Council at
Ministerial level, and other bodies, mostly on an ad hoc basis.  Following the adoption by the WTO
General Council of its guidelines on observer status of IIGOs this procedure has been formalized.
The WTO Secretariat has been granted observer status in OECD bodies in which there is considered
to be a synergy of effort and a comparable and reciprocal status has been granted to the OECD
Secretariat in most relevant WTO bodies.  The extension of the WTO's responsibilities to areas thatwere not previously included in the strict context of trade has increased the scope of mutual interest
between the two organizations and now underpins a broad-based exchange of information and co-
operation.
The WTO Secretariat has access to OECD documents classified as " for official use " or
"general distribution " on-line through OLIS.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 16
VI. REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION 
(OIRSA)
1. Membership (9)
Belize
Costa RicaDominican RepublicEl Salvador
GuatemalaHondurasMexico
NicaraguaPanama
2. Mandate, Scope and Area of Work
OIRSA's area of work includes:
- to promote the economic and social development of the region's population through
the production of wholesome and high-quality agricultural produce which satisfiesthe internal and extra-regional demand for food. (Slogan: "Agricultural health for
human well-being");
- animal health, plant health, and regional coordination of quarantine procedures; and
- agricultural health projects, as well as technical and administrative management
projects.
3. Contribution to the Work of the SPS Committee
- OIRSA helps Members to improve the application of SPS Measures under the terms
of GATT 1994 and the SPS Agreement;
- promotes activities aimed at dissemination, promotion and application of the SPS
Agreement, including a seminar held in Nicaragua in 1998 with the participation of
the Chairman of the SPS Committee and representatives from IPPC and Codex, and
another seminar held in Costa Rica;  and
- has drawn up regulations on the application of SPS measures in inter-Central
American trade.
4. Reciprocity
All documents related to the implementation of the SPS Agreement are available on the
OIRSA web site.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 17
VII. LATIN AMERICAN ECONOMIC SYSTEM (SELA)
1. Membership (28):
Argentina
Bahamas
BarbadosBelize
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
CubaDominican Republic
Ecuador
El SalvadorGrenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
MexicoNicaragua
Panama
ParaguayPeru
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela
2. Mandate, Scope and Area of Work
SELA is a permanent regional body for consultation, coordination, cooperation and joint
economic and social promotion.  The fundamental purposes of SELA are:
- to promote intra-regional cooperation in order to accelerate the economic and social
development of its members;
- to provide a permanent system of consultation and coordination for the adoption of
common positions and strategies on economic and social matters in international
bodies and forums as well as before third countries and groups of countries;
- specifically, SELA's objectives include stimulating satisfactory levels of production
and supply of agricultural products, energy, and other commodities, with emphasis on
the specific supply of foodstuffs; and to encourage coordination of national policiesfor protection and supply with a view to establishing a Latin American policy in this
area.
3. Contribution to the Work of the SPS Committee
The SELA Permanent Secretariat provided technical assistance to Latin American and
Caribbean missions during the Uruguay Round negotiations and currently keeps close ties with
Member State missions to the WTO.  In 1998, SELA  held a workshop on "Agricultural Trade in the
Multilateral Framework: Prospects for Latin America and the Caribbean" with the participation of the
WTO Secretariat.
Previously, SELA had observer status in the GATT Contracting Parties, the Council of
Representatives, and the GATT Committee on Trade and Development.   Currently it has observerstatus in the Committees for Trade and Development and Trade and Environment.  It has requested
observer status in the General Council, the C ouncil for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in
Services, the Council for TRIPS, and the Committees on Agriculture, Regional Trade Agreements,
Market Access and Trade-Related Investment Measures.
4. Reciprocity
All SELA information is available on the web page, or through the Liaison Officer in Geneva.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 18
WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/121/Add.1
15 March 2000
(00-1067)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
APPLICANTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
Note by the Secretariat
Addendum
The following additional application for observer status in the SPS Committee was received
on 25 October 1999.
I. ASIAN AND PACIFIC COCONUT COMMUNITY (APCC)
1. Membership (13)
Mircronesia (Fed. States of) Malaysia Solomon Islands Vietnam
Fiji Papua New Guinea Sri Lanka
India Philippines ThailandIndonesia Samoa Vanuatu
2. Mandate, Scope and Area of Work
The APCC is mandated to promote, coordinate and harmonize all activities in the coconut
industry.  Its activities include:
(a) assisting and encouraging its members to improve quality of coconut products in
order to meet increasing demands made by consumers;
(b) the establishment of quality standards for coconut products acceptable to both
producers and consumers and update them as need arises; and
(c) the elimination of trade restrictions between importers and exporters.
3. Contribution to the Work of the SPS Committee
The APCC accounts for about 90 per cent of world production and exports of coconut
products and represents its members in international fora.  It has expertise in the areas of  coconut
production, processing, quality and trade.
4. Reciprocity
The APCC may invite any non-member state or interested international organizations and/or
non governmental organizations to participate in a consultative capacity in its consideration of any
matter of particular concern to it.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 19
EXCERPT OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING
HELD ON 7, 8, 11 AND 15 DECEMBER 2000
(WT/GC/M(61)
Observer status for internationa l intergovernmental organizations
[155. The Chairman recalled that this was a pending issue on the General Council's agenda.  There
had been further consultations on observer status for international intergovernmental organizations
(IGOs) since the subject was last discussed, but unfortunately no progress had been made.  The
General Council would therefore have to revert to the matter again in 2001.  Given the importance of
the issue, he urged Members to reconsider their positions so that a solution could be found as soon as
possible in 2001.
156. The representative of the United States said that this was an important issue for her delegation
and she thanked the Chairman for the efforts he had made to bring the work forward.  The United
States had made a proposal aimed at resolving this issue and remained committed to find an agreeable
approach to observer status, bearing in mind that opening up the WTO to broader observership was
critical to the overall understanding of the work in the WTO.
157. The representative of Egypt thanked the Chairman for his consultations on this issue and
encouraged him to continue with these consultations.  The position of her country remained
unchanged but she hoped that delegations, which had difficulties in joining a holistic solution on this
issue would be in a position to do so in the weeks ahead.
158. The representative of Hungary encouraged the Chairman to continue his consultations on this
important issue.  As time went by, Members were making pledges to strengthen their outreach and
increase transparency, while the gap between words and action was widening.  He hoped that in the
near future a solution would be found to this issue which, if unresolved, could challenge the
credibility of the organization.
159. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation appreciated the efforts undertaken by
the Chairman to resolve the issue at hand.  Observer status to IGOs had been a pending issue for some
time and this was a cause of embarrassment for the WTO.  His delegation's position on this matter
was well known to the membership and remained the same.  The exercise to grant observer status to
the outstanding requests was political in nature and therefore called for a political solution.  To this
end, Members would have to move away from techni calities and consider all 27 pending requests for
observer status together as a package.  Any process of weeding out organizations was unacceptable to
his delegation.  Pakistan had a keen interest in granting observer status to all the organizations,
especially the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Islamic Development Bank.  He urgedMembers who had reservations in joining the consensus to reconsider their position and he
encouraged the Chairman to carry on with the proces s of consultations in order to break the deadlock.
160. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had tried to find
solutions to this issue and that Members should continue trying, as they had come very close to a
solution.  It was unfortunate that this issue had become a political one in an organization that had agood track record in avoiding politization of some of the difficult questions it had to deal with.  The
present stalemate of the situation applied to the organizations on the last updated list of outstanding
requests for observership.  Therefore, Members should agree to consider other requests than the ones
currently on the list of pending requests.  This would constitute a minimal understanding between
Members, while the major issue remained to be solved.  His delegation was anxious to find a solutionto this matter as soon as possible.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 20
161. The Chairman said that it was difficult for him to believe there would be no problems in
granting observer status to organizations other than the ones currently on the list.  One of the major
difficulties was that there were a number of orga nizations which had observer status under the GATT
Council and which were now blocked from having observer status in the General Council.  That was
perhaps an indication of what the situation would be like for future requests.
162. The representative of the Czech Republic stressed that Members had to be consistent in
dealing with the issue at stake.  His delegation had great concern with regard to the lack of progress
on the question of observer status for IGOs, as this was one of the elements that should contribute to a
better understanding of WTO activities and greater coherence in global policy-making.  He urged all
Members to intensify their efforts so that appropriate action could be taken on pending requests,
taking into account existing rules on the matter.
163. The representative of Venezuela expressed hi s delegation's concern at the lack of movement
in the General Council on this topic and its linkage to the efforts made in the subsidiary bodies.
Members had to move forward on this important issue of observer status for IGOs and show more
flexibility in granting observer status, thus ensuring that the WTO was seen as a more transparent and
truly universal organization.  He urged the Chairman to continue consultations to overcome this
situation.
164. The representative of Brazil said that the lack of a decision on this point was becoming an
embarrassment for the WTO and for the governments of IGOs that had requested observer status.
There was a question of consistency and coherence of national positions regarding this subject.  His
delegation was dedicated to a rapid resolution of this matter and hoped the Chairman could maintain
his efforts on this issue.
165. The Chairman said that he appreciated the fact that delegations encouraged further
consultations.  However, consultations would not lead to any results if positions remained unchanged.
There were some problems underlying this question which were entirely unconnected.  Some
delegations had suggested that it was not a matter of examining organizations individually to see if
they qualified under the guidelines but that a holistic or package solution, which incorporated allpending requests, was preferable.  Such a position had contributed to stopping the progress on this
matter.  Consultations were useless unless there was a change of attitude amongst some delegations.
166. The representative of Canada said that his delegation associated itself completely with the
representative of Hungary.167. The representative of Norway said that Members had to accept that there was still no political
willingness to reach a final solution and for further consultations to be meaningful, a clear signal to
the contrary would be necessary.  Her delegation was concerned with the state of the matter given thatat present, only seven IGOs had been granted observer status to the General Council while close to
30 requests were still pending, in addition to the unresolved applications to the subsidiary bodies.  As
stated before in the course of discussions on external transparency, such a situation could only deepen
the perception of the WTO as a closed society.  Among the applicants were international
organizations with a global membership, such as UNDP and the WHO.  The WTO was in the processof promoting cooperation with UNDP in the Integrated Framework and was also involved in a joint
project on essential drugs with the WHO.  In the field of intellectual property rights and TRIPS, there
was a pending request for observer status by th e Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which
could give valuable input to ongoing processes as well.  Members' continued failure to deal with this
situation was likely to further strengthen the impression already prevailing in the private sector thatthe WTO was unable to take decisions.  Consequently, she urged delegations, which had been
prevented from moving forward on this question due to  conflict with national interests, to endeavor to
arrive at less restrictive positions in the new year.G/SPS/GEN/229
Page 21
168. The representative of Israel thanked the Chairman for his efforts to progress on this important
issue.  His delegation attached great importance to the issue of observer status for IGOs and was ready
to continue consultations and try to contribute to successfully resolving the matter.  It was imperative
for Members to ensure that applicant organizations demonstrated that their activities and policies were
compatible with the objectives and principles of the Marrakesh Agreement.  This was a veryimportant rule that should be followed no matter what solution was adopted.
169. The representative of Tunisia said that his delegation supported the statements made by the
representatives of Egypt and Pakistan.170. The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation also had concerns at the continuation of
this unacceptable situation.  The ACP secretariat, which was on the list of pending requests,
represented the interests of 71 developing countries and also had observer status in the GATT
Council.  Observership in the General Council would greatly facilitate the work of the ACP secretariat
and he hoped that the situation could be resolved in the interests of the WTO membership.
171. The representative of the European Communities, clarifying the statement he had previously
made, said that the stalemate prevailing on the question of observer status applied to the current list of
pending requests from IGOs, as well as to the International Labour Organization, with which there
was also a problem.  Aside from these IGOs, Members should be ready to consider any other requestfor observer status.
172. The representative of Chile said that as stated by the representative of Brazil, the prevailing
situation was uncomfortable and embarrassing.  The fa ct that Members were unable to take a decision
on a simple issue which did not concern Members rights and obligations raised doubts as to their
capacity to handle more complex issues.  The WTO rules and regulations provided for other types ofdecision making and Members should further reflect on this.  One approach to consider was the
adoption by Members of certain guidelines for the acceptance of observers.  Those IGOs meeting the
minimum requirements established in the guidelines and agreed upon by consensus would be
automatically granted observer status and Members would deal in the General Council with the
requests that did not fall within such guidelines.  There were several approaches to decision makingon this issue and since the present decision-making mechanisms were apparently not functioning,
Members should look into other alternatives.
173. The Chairman recalled that in the summer of 1999, Members had tried to adopt more specific
supplementary guidelines building on the existing ones but this attempt had failed.174. The representative of Colombia echoed the concern expressed by many delegations on the
question of observer status and the lack of a solution thereon.  He endorsed the statements made by
the representatives of Hungary and Chile.  He also shared the Chairman's view that as long as therewas no willingness on the part of Members to solve this issue, no progress could be made and this
would be unfortunate for the WTO's image.
175. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to the matter in 2001.]
__________