WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/30
20 November 2003
(03-6207)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Report by the Chairman to the General Council
Part I: ImplementationGeneral
1. The SPS Committee has continued to provide a forum for consultations and has carried out
the functions necessary to implement the provisions of the SPS Agreement in line with Article 12.1 ofthe Agreement.  At each meeting of the Committee, Members have been invited to provide
information regarding their implementation of th e Agreement, including any problems arising
therefrom.  A major focus of the work of the Committee has been on the specific trade problems
Members have identified related to the implementation of the Agreement by other Members.  Another
standing item on the agenda of the SPS Committee is the "SPS Agreement and Developing Countries
– Implementation of the Provisions for Special and Differential Treatment".  A number of
implementation and special and differential treatment issues have been considered by the Committee
in 2003.
Issues arising from the Doha Ministerial Conference
2. In October 2001, the SPS Committee adopted a Decision on the Implementation of Article 4
of the SPS Agreement.1  At the Fourth Ministerial Conference, Ministers took note of this Decision
and instructed the Committee to expeditiously develop a specific programme to further the
implementation of Article 4, as foreseen in paragraph 13 of the Committee's Decision.  The
Committee adopted a Programme for Further Work in March 2002.2  Clarifications of paragraphs 5
and 6 of the Committee's Decision were adopted in November 2002.3
3. In 2003, the work of the Committee on this issue progressed regularly in line with the agreed
programme.  Informal meetings were held prio r to each of the Committee's regular meetings to
consider proposed clarification of paragraph 7, and further clarification of paragraph 5 of the
Decision.  At the meeting of 24-25 June 2003, the Committee agreed on an ad referendum basis to a
clarification of paragraph 7, and as no objections were raised, this proposal was adopted.4  A t  t h e
October 2003 meeting, there was much discussion of a further clarification of paragraph 5, based on a
proposal from Argentina5, with modifications suggested by a number of other Members.  However, it
was not possible to reach final agreement.  The Committee has agreed to consider the modified
proposal again at its next regular meeting in March 2004.6
                                                     
1 G/SPS/19.
2 G/SPS/20.
3 G/SPS/19/Add.1.
4 G/SPS/19/Add.2.
5 G/SPS/W/123/Add.2.
6 G/SPS/W/142.G/SPS/30
Page 2
4. Additionally, at each meeting in 2003,  Members provided information on their experiences
regarding the implementation of Article 4, and information was also provided by the Codex, OIE and
IPPC regarding their work on equivalence.
5. The Committee has thus completed its programme of work, but will continue to consider
further clarification of paragraph 5 of its Decision on Equivalence.  It has also agreed to maintain theissue of equivalence as a standing agenda item for its regular meetings, seeking information from both
Members and observer organizations on their experiences and progress with the implementation of
equivalence in the context of the SPS Agreement.
Part II: Special and Differential Treatment
Issues raised directly in the Committee
6. The Committee continued its examination of the SPS Agreement and the concerns of
developing countries in 2003.  At its April meeting, the Committee adopted in principle a Canadian
proposal to enhance the transparency of the special and differential treatment, subject to further
elaboration of the procedures.7  An elaboration of the steps to be followed in the implementation of
the proposal was suggested by the Secretariat, and revised following its consideration by the
Committee at its July meeting.8  Just prior to the October meeting, the United States suggested further
modifications to this elaboration.9  The Committee was unable to reach final agreement on these
proposals and will revert to this matter at the Committee meeting in March 2004.
7. The Committee also further considered a proposal by Egypt for the inclusion of information
on available special and differential treatment in the notification formats.10  The objective is to
identify, at the time a measure is being developed or modified, the developing countries which mightbe affected by the new measure and the availability of special and differential treatment or relevant
technical assistance.  Another suggestion under consideration by the Committee is a proposal by
Mexico
11 for the pre-notification of measures being developed by Members, describing the objective
of the measure and the products to be covered.  Discussion on these proposals will continue in March
2004.
8. Recognizing that many developing country Members face difficulties in ensuring the effective
operation of their national enquiry points, the Committee held a special meeting on the operation of
enquiry points in the margins of the October meeting.  Using speakers and panel discussions, the
meeting focussed on the problems Members' enquiry points face which inhibit their effective
operation and on the means to overcome such constraints.  Ten participants from enquiry points in
least developed and developing countries were sponsored to attend the special meeting, as well as the
informal and regular meetings of the SPS Committee, thanks to funds provided by two Members.Three of the sponsored participants gave presentations at the special meeting.  Information provided at
the special meeting, responses to a questionnaire circulated prior to the meeting regarding the
operation of the enquiry points and national notification authorities
12, and papers submitted by several
                                                     
7 G/SPS/W/127
8 G/SPS/W/132/Rev.1
9 G/SPS/W/141
10 G/SPS/GEN/358
11 G/SPS/W/136
12 G/SPS/W/103/Rev.1G/SPS/30
Page 3
Members13 will be used by the Secretariat to identify some practices which may assist developing
countries to more effectively operate their national enquiry points and notification authorities.
Issues referred to the Committee by the General Council
9. On 20 May 2003, the Chairman of the General Council referred five proposals relating to
special and differential treatment to the SPS Committee.14  In June, the Committee adopted a work
plan for further consideration of these proposals.15
10. In accordance with the agreed work plan, Members were requested to submit specific
comments on these proposals, including specific suggestions to address any differences of views
regarding the proposals, before 30 September 2003.  These comments were considered by the
Committee at its meetings in October.  Comments supported by a number of other Members were that
the provision of technical assistance could not be made mandatory or cost free, nor should justified
SPS measures be withdrawn simply because some Me mbers might have difficulty complying with the
requirements.
11. Any further comments and specific suggestions received from Members on the five proposals
will be considered at the March 2004 meeting.
__________
                                                     
13China G/SPS/GEN/378, Argentina G/SPS/GEN/425 and corrigendum, Australia G/SPS/GEN/429,
Canada and New Zealand G/SPS/GEN430, Pakistan G/SPS/GEN/436, Panama G/SPS/GEN/438, SenegalG/SPS/GEN/441, Venezuela G/SPS/GEN/442, Thailand G/SPS/GEN/450 and Mexico G/SPS/GEN/451.
14 JOB(03)/100.
15 G/SPS/26.