RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/L/423
29 November 2000
(00-5144)
EQUIVALENCE:  CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT
Summary of the Discussions of the SPS Committee
Report by the Chairman
1. At its Special Session on 18 October 2000, the General Council referred to the relevant WTO
bodies a number of implementation-related issues.  Among these, the General Council requested the
SPS Committee "to examine the concerns of developing countries regarding the equivalence of SPSmeasures and to come up with concrete options as to  how to deal with them".  I was requested, as the
Chairman of the SPS Committee, to report on progress on the matter to the General Council before its
Special Session on 14-15 December 2000.
2. Prior to the request of the General Council, the SPS Committee had already embarked on an
examination of the concerns of developing coun tries with respect to implementation of the SPS
Agreement.  The Committee had in particular agreed to focus first on the issue of special and
differential treatment as well as on the issue of equivalence and the implementation of Article 4 of the
SPS Agreement.  At its meeting of 21-22 June 2000, the SPS Committee had agreed that an informal
meeting would allow for in-depth and freer discussi on of the issues, and that observer organizations
could participate in the informal meeting.   Members were invited to submit papers or non-papers on
the subject of special and differential treatment, and requested that Members bring to the Committee's
attention equivalence agreements reached with trading partners and specific examples of problemsencountered in seeking equivalence agreements.  The observer organizations had also been requested
to provide any relevant information regarding their work on equivalence.
3. The SPS Committee held an informal meeting on equivalence (Article 4) on
7 November 2000, and also considered the issue at its regular meeting on 8-9  November 2000.  The
informal meeting on Article 4 provided an opportunity for a useful discussion of equivalence, and thedifficulties many Members face in making use of this provision.  There was a good exchange of views
and different perspectives were identified.
4. The United States introduced a paper (G/SPS /GEN/212) which described the US experience
implementing Article 4.  The representative of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission
(Codex) presented two papers relevant to Article 4.  These papers help with the comprehension of theimportance and complexity of the equivalence issue.  The Codex guidelines on equivalence
agreements for food safety control, inspection and certification systems identify what types of
information should be evaluated in reaching such agreements for food safety systems
(G/SPS/GEN/210).  Work on the judgement of equivalence is at an early step in the Codex process
(G/SPS/GEN/211).
5. Several developing countries stressed that instead of recognizing the equivalence of
developing country SPS measures, importing countries often required "sameness", i.e., that the
developing country demonstrate that its SPS measure was entirely similar to that of the importingG/L/423
Page 2
country.  The developing countries felt this to be a major impediment to entering into equivalence
agreements.
6. Among the interesting information and ideas brought out during the discussions was that there
are a variety of ways to apply the equivalence provisions.  These range from (i) formal agreements
recognizing the equivalence of SPS systems;  to (ii) agreements of equivalence for specific products;to (iii) acceptance, on an ad hoc basis, of the equivalence of specific technical aspects of certain SPS
measures.
7. Some delegates noted that formal equivalence determinations and/or agreements at the
systems level are few, and are resource intensive and time-consuming to negotiate.  At the same time,
delegates noted that ad hoc acceptance of the equivalence of specific products, or of the equivalence
of certain technical aspects related to SPS measures, was very commonplace.  This acceptance of
equivalence is often at the technical level, and is not necessarily reflected in any formal bilateralagreement.
8. Some delegates were concerned that large importing countries might think that the
administrative burdens of equivalence agreements were not justified when the anticipated trade
benefits were small.  However, this improved access could be very important to the exporting country.
It was suggested that Members should explore practical ways to reduce the administrative burden andthus facilitate equivalence agreements.  It was also pointed out that both the importing and the
exporting country face administrative burdens asso ciated with formal equivalence agreements.
9. The importance of technical assistance in the recognition of equivalence of SPS measures was
emphasized by several delegates.
10. It was also suggested that Members should actively participate in the on-going work in the
Codex on the issue of judgement of equivalence.  This issue will be considered by the Codex
Committee on Food Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICs) at its meeting in mid-December
2000.
11. Although neither the Office internationale des epizooties (OIE) nor the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) have yet addressed the issue of system-wide equivalence agreements,both are in the process of carefully examining the work of the Codex in this regard.  For animal health
and plant protection, ad hoc acceptance of equivalence of specific products or of certain technical SPS
aspects is widespread.
12. The SPS Committee agreed to continue the discussions of this issue at an informal meeting to
be held immediately before the next regular meeting of the SPS Committee (tentatively scheduled for
14-15 March 2001), as well as keep the issue on the agenda for its next regular meeting.  The SPS
Committee also agreed that observer organizations  (and governments) would again be invited to
contribute and participate in the informal discussions;  their input into the debate and information on
their activities in this regard is important.
13. Members have been requested to put on paper their experiences, positive or negative as the
case may be, in seeking equivalence.  This should include all types of equivalence recognition,
whether formal agreements at the systems level, informal agreements on a product basis, or ad hocacceptance of specific technical aspects of certain SPS measures.  More specifically, Members could
provide the following:
(a) for any positive experiences where equivalence has been recognized, whether on a
systems, product or ad hoc basis, information on the steps taken and the factors considered in reaching
this recognition;G/L/423
Page 3
(b) for negative experiences, where equivalence was sought but not recognized,
information on the difficulties encountered and the reasons why equivalence was not recognized;  and
(c) any practical suggestions based on these experiences, both positive and negative, that
could facilitate the recognition of equivalence for other Members in the future.  In particular,
Members are invited to submit practical, concrete suggestions on how to make it easier for developing
countries to get recognition of equivalence for their export products, including any suggestions how
the administrative burden could be reduced.
All Members are encouraged to provide such information by 16 February 2001  at the latest.
__________