RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/121
7 October 2002
(02-5401)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
CLARIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE DECISION ON EQUIVALENCE
Note by the Secretariat1
1. Paragraph 5 of the Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Decision on Equivalence", G/SPS/19)
states that "The importing Member should accelerate its procedure for determining equivalence in
respect of those products which it has historically imported from the exporting Member."
2. At the time of adoption of this decision, several Members indicated that clarification of
Paragraph 5 was required, to ensure its appropriate implementation.  This concern was reflected in the
Committee's subsequent adoption of a Programme for Further Work on Equivalence (G/SPS/20).
This programme foresees the "consideration of draft guidance for accelerated procedures for the
recognition of equivalence of products historically  traded, on the basis of categorization of trade
patterns and risks" at the 7-8 November 2002 meeting of the Committee.
3. Several Members have submitted papers regarding clarification of Paragraph 5, or made oral
suggestions at informal and regular meetings, including Argentina (G/SPS/W/116), Australia
(G/SPS/GEN/331) and New Zealand (G/SPS/GEN/326).
4. Argentina suggested, in document G/SPS/W/116, that the normal procedure for the
recognition of equivalence could be accelerated in the light of certain variables.  These concern
primarily the experience and knowledge already acquired by services with respect to importedproducts from the trading partner seeking recognition of equivalence.  In situations where a product
was being imported without any rejections due to SPS reasons, Argentina suggested that there should
be essentially automatic recognition that the export ing country's sanitary measures comply with the
importing country's appropriate level of protection.  However, in those cases where a Member wishes
to export a new product, or wishes to resume exportation of a product after a change in the importingor exporting country's sanitary conditions, the ordinary (non-accelerated) procedure for recognition of
equivalence should apply.  A third situation id entified by Argentina was when existing trade
arrangements had been suspended due to failure to meet certain sanitary requirements, or when the
initiation of trade in new products was well advanced, but all exchanges and controls had not been
completed.  Argentina suggested that a fast-track procedure might be appropriate in these cases, to
address unresolved issues but to avoid repeating steps already taken.
5. Argentina identified the product risk as a seco nd variable that would need to be taken into
consideration, along with that regarding established trade contacts.  In this respect, the relative safety
or risk of products or groups of products was critical, recognizing that processed food products
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.G/SPS/W/121
Page 2
normally presented considerably lower health risks than raw meat products, or raw horticultural
products.
6. Australia noted that conformity with the requirements of an importing country should not be
confused with determinations of equivalence.  In the first instance, the entry of a product from the
exporting country was permitted because it complied with the requirements identified by theimporting country.  A recognition of equivalence only applied in cases where an exporting country
was using means that were different from those normally required by the importing country.  Historic
trade usually was based on the exporting country complying with the importer's requirements.  The
exporting country would seek recognition of equivale nce only if it wished to export products that met
the importers' ALOP using other means.  A histor y of previous trade, however, could facilitate
acceptance of the reliability of the competent authority of the exporting country.
7. New Zealand also stressed the importance of the importing country's confidence in the
soundness of the exporting country's regulatory system for determination of equivalence.  A history of
trade provided knowledge about the exporting Member's measures and control systems, which could
facilitate the process of reaching a determination of equivalence.  New Zealand noted that this was
reflected in both the Codex draft guidelines on judgement of equivalence (Alinorm 03/30,
Appendix III) and the OIE's draft paper (G/SPS/W/119, section 17).
8. In the discussions on Paragraph 5, a number of Members agreed that the existence of a trading
relationship between two Members could facilitate the determination of equivalence of a new measure
proposed by the exporting country primarily because of the existence of information regarding an
exporting country's infrastructure and regulatory systems, and the historic contacts between the
appropriate regulatory officials of an exporting and importing country.  The extent to which thedetermination of equivalence could be accelerated depended on the specific nature of the measure
being proposed as "equivalent" by the exporting Member, and the extent to which this measure
differed from the measure which historically served as the basis for trade.  The nature of the risk
associated with the proposed new measure or the product could also be relevant, as suggested by
Argentina.
9. As noted above, the important role that this previous relationship can play in the recognition
of equivalence is currently recognized by both the Codex and OIE.  The current version of the Codex
Draft Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food
Inspection and Certification Systems (CX/FICS 02/11/3 of September 2002) includes a Section on
General Principles for the Determination of Equivalence.
2  Paragraph 7 of this section reads as
follows:
"Determination of the equivalence of sanitary measures associated with food inspection and
certification systems should be based on application of the following principles:
(j) The importing country should take into account any knowledge it has of the
food inspection and certification systems in the exporting country to make the 
determination as efficiently and quickly as possible."
Section 5 of the draft text addresses "The Context of an Equivalence Determination".  Paragraphs 10
and 11 of this section state:
                                                     
2 Governments and international organizations are invited to submit comments on this subject-matter
by 30 October 2002.  This draft text and the comments submitted will be considered by the next meeting of theCodex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) on 2-
5 December 2002, in Adelaide, Australia.G/SPS/W/121
Page 3
10. "The extent of the equivalence determination will depend on the prior experience, 
knowledge, and confidence that the importi ng country has regarding the food control 
measures of the exporting country.
11. "When an importing country has prior experience, knowledge and confidence in food 
control measures relevant to those being evaluated for equivalence and the countries agree that import requirements are being fully met, e.g. where trade experience exists,
determination of the equivalence of sanitary measures may be made without further 
consideration of those other relevant measures making up the food control system."
The final section of the Codex draft text, Section 8 on Judgement, states that:
20. "Judgement of the equivalence of sanitary measures should take into account:
a) experience and knowledge of an exporting country's food inspection and 
certification systems (see section 5)."
10. Work on recognition of equivalence in animal health matters at the OIE is much less
advanced than the Codex work.  Nonetheless, the draft paper submitted by the OIE on the Judgement
of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures relating to International Trade in Animals and Animal Products
recognizes that a history of prior trade between countries is relevant and could facilitate recognition of
equivalence.  In particular, Section F on "Princ iples for Judgement of Equivalence" states, in
paragraph 17:
"In conjunction with the above considerations, determination of the equivalence of sanitary
measures should be based on application of the following principles:
- the importing country should taken into account prior experience with the veterinary 
administration or other competent authority of the exporting country … ".
11. The IPPC has not yet begun to explicitly address the issue of equivalence.  Work on
consideration of efficacy of treatments may, however, facilitate the recognition of different treatments
as equally effective means of controlling particular plant pests or diseases.
Recommendation
12. It is recommended that the Committee agree that historic trade provides an opportunity for an
importing Member to become familiar with the infrastructure and measures of an exporting Member,
and to develop confidence in the regulatory procedures of that Member.  This information and
experience, if directly relevant to the product and measure under consideration, should be taken into
account in the recognition of equivalence of measures proposed by the exporting Member.  In
particular, information already available to the importing Member should not be sought again with
respect to procedures to determine the equivalence of measures proposed by the exporting Member.
13. The Committee should note that the importance of this knowledge based on historic trade has
been fully recognized in the draft Codex Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary
Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems.  The Committee should further
note that the importance of such prior experience is also recognized in the OIE draft paper on the
Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures relating to International Trade in Animals and
Animal Products.  The Committee should encourage that further elaboration of specific guidance bythese organizations should ensure that such recognition is maintained.G/SPS/W/121
Page 4
14. The Committee should draw the attention of the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary
Measures (ICPM) to it's Decision on Equivalence, and to the above clarification with respect to
Paragraph 5 of the Decision.  The Committee should request that the ICPM take into consideration the
Decision and this clarification in its future work on judgement of equivalence with regard to sanitary
measures to address plant pests and diseases.
__________