./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/W/202
14 June 1999
(99-2363)
General Council Original:  English
PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1999 MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
Proposals Regarding the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
in terms of Paragraph 9(a)(i) of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration
Communication from India
The following communication, dated 7 June 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of India.
_______________
Issues
1. Arbitrary and restrictive sanitary and phytosanitary measures continue to represent a major
obstacle to international trade of agricultural products.  Developing-country exports are usually
affected in two ways.  Firstly, because the SPS measures are often developed in a non-transparent
manner and developing countries invariably do not get adequate opportunity to respond to the
proposed measures.  Secondly, the Agreement provides that in order to ensure that the adoption of a
new SPS regulation does not cause barriers to trade, there should be a reasonable interval between its
publication and its entry into force.  It further provides that "longer time-frames for compliance" beprovided for developing countries.  The basic purpose of these provisions is to provide sufficient time
to producers in developing countries to adopt their products to the requirements of new regulations.
In practice, compliance of these provisions by countries introducing new measures has been largely
non-existent.  Though the SPS Agreement provides that countries base their SPS measures on
international standards, guidelines and recommendations, the participation of developing countries inthe international standardization activities has been limited and ineffective.  A number of international
standards are thus being developed without the participation of developing countries.  As a result,
standards are often being adopted without taking into account the problems and constraints that
developing countries face.  Means have therefore to be found to ensure effective participation of
developing countries in the development of standards by international standard-setting bodies.
2. Solution to some of these issues, which the experience of standardization activities raise, as
well as those arising from ineffective participati on of developing countries in these bodies could
perhaps be found by reviewing the definition of an international standard.  International standards
could be distinguished according to the purpose for which they are being adopted i.e. whether for use
on a voluntary or a mandatory basis.  Guidelines and recommendations, in the context of theAgreement could be developed and adopted in the international standard setting bodies by majority.
These guidelines or recommendations would be volu ntary in nature.  However, any international
standards which would form a basis for a universal SPS measure should only be adopted by
consensus.  Moreover, in the formulation of such mandatory standards, an agreed minimum number
of countries from different regions must have participated in the technical work throughout the
process relating to its adoption.WT/GC/W/202
Page 2
Proposals
3. Even though Article 10:1 of the SPS Agreement provides that in the preparation and
application of SPS measures Members shall take into account of the special needs of the developing
countries, this has rarely been done.  Article 10:1 therefore needs to be translated into mandatoryprovisions.
4. Similarly Article 10:2 which provides for longer time-frames for compliance on products of
interest to developing-country Members has only been followed in the breach.  This provision should
be modified to make it mandatory/obligatory for developed countries to provide longer time-frames
for compliance of new SPS measures for products from developing countries.
5. If a SPS measure is found to create a problem for several developing countries, then the
country which has adopted it should be obliged to reconsider it.  If, after reviewing its implications, itstill reconfirms the measure then it should provide the necessary technical cooperation to the affected
countries.
6. The participation of developing countries in the international standard development process is
extremely limited and ineffective.  International standardizing bodies must ensure the presence of
countries at different levels of development and from different geographical regions, throughoutdifferent phases of standard setting.  It must be ensured that in the formulation of standards the
specific conditions prevailing in developing countries are taken into account.  The international
standard setting organizations, which are all observers in the SPS Committee, should, at the very
minimum, be urged to accept the obligation to periodically report to the SPS Committee in this
regard.
7. Paragraph 2 of Annex B of the Agreement stipulates that Members shall allow a reasonable
interval between publication of a sanitary or phytosanitary regulation and its entry into force in order
to allow producers, particularly in developing countries, to adapt their products and methods of
production to the new requirements.  This has rarely been done.  The provisions of this paragraph
should therefore be made mandatory and what constitutes a "reasonable interval" should be specified.
8. Though Article 4 of the SPS Agreement encourages equivalency, this principle has more
often than not been interpreted as meaning "sameness".  Equivalency may be the best option for
developing countries until their participation in international standard setting bodies becomes
satisfactory.  This provision therefore must be suitably clarified so as to ensure that equivalence
agreements are entered upon, particularly with developing countries.
9. Though the SPS Agreement encourages Members to enter into MRA’s, so far developing
countries have not been included into such agreements.  It is suggested that (i) MRA’s are developedin a transparent way; (ii) they should be open to parties that may wish to join them at a later stage;
and (iii) they should contain rules of origin which allow all products which pass the conformity
assessment procedures to benefit from the MRA.
10. The definition of an international standard, guideline and recommendation (paragraph 3 of
Annex A) needs to be revised so that a differenti ation is introduced between mandatory international
standards and a voluntary international guideline/recommendation.
11. Article 12:7 provides for a review of the operation and implementation of the Agreement
three years after the date of entry into force of the Agreement and thereafter as the need arises.  It is
important that a decision is taken to the effect that this review is carried out once every two years.
__________