RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/L/455
13 July 2001
(01-3490)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
EQUIVALENCE:  CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT
Summary of Informal Discussions on Equivalence
Third Report by the Chairman
1. On 9 July 2001, the SPS Committee held a third informal meeting on the issue of equivalence
in the context of developing country concerns.  The Committee had first agreed to informal
discussions on this issue at its meeting of June 2000.  Subsequently, the Committee received the
General Council's request that it "examine the concerns of developing countries regarding theequivalence of sanitary and phytosanitary measures and come up with concrete options as to how to
deal with them".
2. In concluding the first informal meeting on equivalence, in November 2000, Members were
requested to provide specific information regarding their experiences – both positive and negative – in
seeking recognition of equivalence.  For the informal meeting on 9 July 2001, such information wasprovided by Japan (G/SPS/GEN/261), and orally by Colombia.  Information has previously been
provided by New Zealand (G/SPS /GEN/232), Argentina (Job(01)/31), Fiji (G/SPS/GEN/238), the
United States (G/SPS/GEN/212), the European Communities (G/SPS/GEN/101), Thailand
(G/SPS/GEN//242), Australia (G/SPS/GEN/243) and India.  The information previously provided was
summarized in a document by the Secretariat (G/SPS/W/111).
3. The Secretariat document also listed the major concerns raised by developing countries with
regard to equivalence, and on the basis of the submissions by Members and discussions in theCommittee, identified possible concrete approaches for addressing these concerns.  These possible
approaches are annexed to this report.
4. In addition, for the informal meeting on 9 July, Argentina presented a paper further
elaborating their recommendations regarding the criter ia and content of any international standard for
the determination of equivalence (G/SPS/GEN/268).  In particular, Argentina proposed principles togovern the process of determining equivalence.
5. In the discussions, some Members recalled that there were actually very few formal
equivalence agreements between Members because these were time-consuming and costly.
Equivalence was only one tool for achieving greater  market access, and other provisions of the SPS
Agreement could provide more immediate, easier and less costly results.  Additionally, provisionssuch as Article 6 on Adaptation to Regional Conditions, could complement the recognition of
equivalence.  It was also stressed that the valu e of recognition of equivalence was not limited to
exports by developing countries to developed country markets, but indeed could be a useful tool for
facilitating trade among all Members.
6. Members again stressed the critical importance of transparency and access to information
regarding equivalence agreements and discussions.  While agreeing that technical assistance should be
provided to help developing countries identify and implement equivalent measures, it was noted thatG/L/455
Page 2
no Member had to date requested such assistance.  The Committee subsequently held useful
discussions regarding technical assistance.1
7. The Committee sought further information from the relevant standard-setting organizations
regarding their activities in the area of equivalence.  The representative of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission confirmed that Codex had already developed guidelines for generic certificates, as wellas for the design, operation, assessment and accreditation of food import and export inspection
certification systems, and recently advanced with guidelines for the judgement of equivalence.  These
guidelines were designed to allow the recognition of  equivalence either of inspection and certification
systems, or of individual products and treatments.  Other work by various Codex committees,
including on the development of specific certificates and with respect to microbiological
contamination, were also relevant in this regard.  The representative of the OIE reported that work
was underway both in developing general guidance for recognizing equivalence at the systems levelas well as on the recognition of the equivalence of specific methodologies.  Members of the IPPC had
not to date identified the issue of equivalence as being problematic and in need of specific guidance,
but had discussed it on an ad hoc basis.  Given the interest of the Committee, the IPPC indicated its
intention to bring this matter to the attention of its members.
8. The Committee agreed that the possible approaches identified in the Secretariat document
could provide the basis for the development of co ncrete options for dealing with the concerns of
developing countries, as well as of other Members.   In addition, the proposals of Argentina warranted
more detailed consideration as they addressed critical questions with respect to the recognition of
equivalence.  The Committee agreed to continue its c onsideration of this issue at its next meeting and
to examine in depth the possible approaches, with a view to developing recommendations that wouldmake the provisions of Article 4 on Equivalence more operational.  Members were encouraged to
provide further concrete examples of their experiences in this regard, and the relevant standard-setting
organizations were invited to keep the Committee re gularly informed regarding their activities which
were relevant to the issue of equivalence.
                                                     
1 See the Chairman's summary report of the discussions, G/SPS/GEN/267.G/L/455
Page 3
ANNEX
Possible Approaches Suggested in G/SPS/W/111
1. A possible approach to address both the "sameness" concern and the "administrative burden"
issue is the  acceptance of equivalence at the technical level (i.e. equivalence for a specific product or
of a particular sanitary and phytosanitary measure) as a first step, moving gradually, when necessary
and appropriate, to more comprehensive and formal systems-wide or broad-ranging agreements on
equivalence.  In other words, instead of seeking a formal systems-wide or broad-ranging equivalence
agreement, Members may wish to start with a more targeted approach and agree on the equivalence of
a single product or measure (which may or may not require an equivalence agreement).  If the needexists or arises, the Members may subsequently seek to broaden the recognition of equivalence and
enter into a systems-wide agreement.
2. An importing Member could, whenever possible, clearly identify the appropriate level of
protection which its sanitary or phytosanitary measure is designed to attain.  In doing so, Members
should take into account the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5
adopted by the SPS Committee at its meeting of 21-22 June 2000.
2
3. An importing Member could explain to the exporting country the objective of the sanitary or
phytosanitary measure and identify the risks that the relevant measure is intended to address.  Where
appropriate, the explanation could be accompanied by a copy of the risk assessment underlying the
sanitary or phytosanitary measure.
4. In order to enable the importing Member to decide whether the alternative measure of the
exporting country provides the adequate level of protection against a given risk, the exporting
Member could provide appropriate, science-based technical information to support its application for
recognition of equivalence.
5. In accordance with Article 9 of the SPS Agreement, the importing country could provide
technical assistance requested by the exporting country to help identify and implement measures
which are recognized to be equivalent.
6. Members could actively participate in the ongoing work in Codex on the issue of equivalence,
and in any related work in the OIE and IPPC.
7. The Committee could formally request the OIE and IPPC to consider the need for the
elaboration of guidelines on equivalence of sanitary and phytosanitary measures and equivalence
agreements  in the animal health and plant protection areas.
8. In the light of Committee's conclusion, the recommended notification procedures3 could be
revised to encourage the notification of recognition of the equivalence of sanitary and phytosanitary
measures of other Members, as well as to provide information on their participation in any bilateral or
multilateral equivalence agreements.
                                                     
2 G/SPS/15
3 G/SPS/7/Rev.1G/L/455
Page 4
9. Members could also be requested to provide additional information on any experiences they
have had in the recognition of equivalence.
10. The Committee could develop a specific programme for further work designed to clarify the
current practices and difficulties faced by Members in efforts to achieve recognition of equivalence,
with particular consideration of the problems encountered by developing country Members.
__________