RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/111
4 July 2001
(01-3338)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
EQUIVALENCE
Note by the Secretariat
1. Following the two informal meetings of the SPS Committee on the issue of equivalence in the
context of developing country concerns, this note is intended to assist Members in advancing thediscussion.  The note draws on and summarizes information provided by Members and international
organizations in the context of formal and informal meetings of the SPS Committee.
1  It identifies the
specific concerns raised by developing country Members and endeavours to identify possible means
of addressing these.  The Annex summarizes the main points raised by Members in their submissions
regarding equivalence.
INTRODUCTION
2. Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("SPS
Agreement") states that:
1. "Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other
Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own or from thoseused by other Members trading in the same product, if the exporting Member
objectively demonstrates to the importing Member that its measures achieve the
importing Member's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection.  For
this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon request, to the importing Member
for inspection, testing and other relevant procedures.
2. "Members shall, upon request, enter into consultations with the aim of
achieving bilateral and multilateral agreements on recognition of the equivalence ofspecified sanitary or phytosanitary measures."
3. The purpose of equivalence is to facilitate trade.  As has been noted in the discussions,
equivalence does not replace the need for the development and use of international standards and
should not be used as an instrument for discrimination, or result in additional barriers to trade.
"S
AMENESS NOT EQUIVALENCE "
4. A concern raised by several developing country Members is the perception that instead of
recognizing the equivalence of a developing country's SPS measure, an importing country often
requires "sameness", i.e. the developing country has to demonstrate that its sanitary or phytosanitary
                                                     
1 Including the reports of the Chairman of the SPS Committee to the General Council, G/L/423 and
G/L/445.G/SPS/W/111
Page 2
measure is entirely the same as that of the importing country.  This is considered to be a major
impediment to entering into equivalence agreements.
"ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN "
5. Some Members noted that formal equivalence determinations and/or agreements at the
systems level are rare, and are resource intensive and time-consuming to negotiate.  It was alsopointed out that both the importing and the exporting country face administrative burdens associated
with formal equivalence agreements.  Moreover, equivalence agreements are not a necessary
condition to gain access to another Member’s market and recourse to other provisions of the SPS
Agreement prior to a request for formal equivalence consultations may yield more immediate trade
benefits.
6. However, other Members were concerned that although an importing country might consider
that the administrative burden of an equivalence agreement is not justified, especially when theanticipated trade benefits are small, improved access through acceptance of equivalence could be very
important to the exporting country.  In this regard, it was also noted that a developing country's
exports are often concentrated in a limited number of products and involve few enterprises.
7. At the same time, it was stressed that ad hoc acceptance of the equivalence of specific
products, or of the equivalence of certain technical aspects related to SPS measures, is verycommonplace.  This acceptance of equivalence often occurs at the technical level, and is not
necessarily reflected in any formal bilateral agreement.
8. At its meeting of March 2001, the Committee endorsed the following conclusion:
"While noting the concept of equivalence is not about "duplication" or "sameness of
measures", the Committee recognized that equivalence may take many differentforms, ranging from the acceptance of the equivalence of particular sanitary and
phytosanitary measures to protect against specific risks in a specific product, to
formal systems-wide or broad-ranging agreements on equivalence.  The Committee
also recognized that the more broad-ra nging the equivalence agreement, the more
difficult it may be to conclude."
Possible approach
9. 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 ofa single product or measure (which may or may not require an equivalence agreement).  If the need
exists or arises, the Members may subsequently seek to broaden the recognition of equivalence and
enter into a systems-wide agreement.
A
PPROPRIATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION
10. One of the critical elements in the process of recognition of equivalence is that the sanitary or
phytosanitary measures used by the exporting country have to achieve the appropriate level ofG/SPS/W/111
Page 3
protection of the importing country.2  It is therefore essential that the importing country determines its
appropriate level of protection and that the exporting country satisfactorily demonstrates that it can
achieve this level.  Some Members, however, have indicated that it is often difficult to identify the
appropriate level of protection of the importing country.
Possible approach
11. 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 2000.3
12. 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 thesanitary or phytosanitary measure.
13. 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.
14. 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.
I
NTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION
15. Several Members stressed the need for the elaboration of international guidelines on
equivalence which would allow the systematic application of the principle.  Guidelines should deal
with recognition and judgement of equivalence.  The Codex Alimentarius Commission has developed
guidelines for the design, operation, assessment and accreditation of food import and export
inspection and certification systems.  Codex has also developed guidelines for the development of
equivalence agreements regarding food import a nd export inspection and certification systems.
Codex is currently developing guidelines on the judgement of equivalence of sanitary measures
associated with food inspection and certification systems.
16. Although neither the Office international des épizooties (OIE) nor the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) have yet addressed the issue of systems-wide equivalence agreements,
both are in the process of 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.
                                                     
2 In Salmon , the Appellate Body noted that the determination of the appropriate level of protection is a
prerogative of the Member concerned, and that there is no obligation to determine the appropriate level of
protection in quantitative terms.  The Appellate Body continued:  "This does not mean, however, that animporting Member is free to determine its level of protection with such vagueness or equivocation that theapplication of the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement, such as Article 5.6, becomes impossible."(WT/DS18/AB/R, paras. 199 and 206).
3 G/SPS/15G/SPS/W/111
Page 4
Possible approach
17. 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.  In this regard, it is worth recalling that at the request of
the General Council, the Director-General is exploring with the relevant international standard-setting
organizations and relevant intergovernmental organizations financial and technical mechanisms toassist the participation of developing countries in standard-setting activities.
4  The recent initiative by
FAO to establish a "Food Safety and Quality Facility  for Least Developed Countries" is an important
step in this regard.
18. 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.
TRANSPARENCY AND CONFIDENCE
19. Several Members expressed concern with regard to the lack of transparency in relation to
equivalence agreements.  The notification of such agreements is not mandatory under the
transparency provisions of the Agreement, and developing countries raised the concern that they have
not been provided with an opportunity to partic ipate in the existing bilateral and multilateral
agreements between developed countries.  On the other hand, it was pointed out that it is within thescope of Enquiry Points to provide information on recognition of equivalence or equivalence
agreements, and to provide copies of all relevant documents upon request.
20. At its meeting of March 2001, the Committee endorsed the following conclusions:
"The provision and exchange of data and information is critical for
the recognition of equivalence.  Therefore, Members reaffirm theircommitment, in accordance with Article 7 and Annex B, paragraph 3,
of the SPS Agreement, that their SPS Enquiry Point will provide
requested information on recognition of equivalence, as well as on
their participation in any bilateral or multilateral equivalence
agreements, including the texts of such agreements.
"To further enhance transparency, Members will inform the SPS
Committee of their recognition of the equivalence of the sanitary and
phytosanitary measures of other Members ."
21. The importance of trust-based dialogue was also emphasized in terms of the communication
and transparency between parties negotiating recognition of equivalence or equivalence agreements.
This is critical not only for the negotiation of recognition of equivalence or equivalence agreements
but also for their implementation.
Possible approach
22. In the light of Committee's conclusion, the recommended notification procedures
5 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.
                                                     
4 WT/GC/42 & WT/GC/45
5 G/SPS/7/Rev.1G/SPS/W/111
Page 5
23. Members could also be requested to provide additional information on any experiences they
have had in the recognition of equivalence.
FUTURE WORK
24. At its meeting of March 2001, the Committee also endorsed the following conclusion:
"The Committee agreed to continue its work  with regard to equivalence to develop
concrete guidance, based on contributions from Members and in close cooperation
with the relevant standard-setting bodies, that will enhance the opportunity for all
Members, and in particular developing country Members, to benefit from the
recognition of equivalence, including through equivalence agreements."
Possible Approach
25. 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.   G/SPS/W/111
Page 6
ANNEX
Summary of the information provided by Members and international organizations
Argentina (Job(01)/31)
1. According to the Argentine paper, the central issue is the equivalence of control systems at
the national level based on the correct interpretation of three basic concepts:  sanitary measures,
appropriate level of protection and safety objective.  Until now, when an exporting country sought
access to another market, it had to comply with the demands of the importing country both as regards
actual requirements and verification of effective compliance of the product exported with suchrequirements.
2. The issue of determining when a measure is equivalent to another and how that "judgement"
relates to the adequate level of protection and safety objective is still open to discussion.  The issue of
equivalence is relevant to market access negotiations at the regional, hemispheric and multilateral
levels.
3. The Argentine paper identifies the following as the essential criteria for the determination of
equivalence involve:  (a) the need for the importing country to identify the appropriate level of
protection;  (b) the objective demonstration by the exporting country;  and (c) the need for an
objective response to equivalence.  It is essential that the exporting country satisfactorily demonstrates
that its sanitary measures achieve the appropriate level of protection of the importing country.
4. Effective trade facilitation is key to the adoption of a procedure for the determination of
equivalence since market access for the developing countries largely depends on what is agreed in this
respect.  Requirements for achieving equivalence must not turn into disguised restrictions on trade of
developing countries.  This subject must be raised in other fora, essentially in conjunction with trade
facilitation and market access.
5. Priority objectives for a procedure for the determination of equivalence include:  (a) trade
facilitation;  (b) elimination of  duplication of controls;  (c) assurance that implementation costs do
not exceed profits in order to guarantee product competitiveness in foreign markets;  (d) transparency;
(e) adoption of WTO/SPS procedures;  (f) assurance of quality and confidence in negotiated products;
(g) achievement of the appropriate level of protection at minimum cost, avoiding cost transfers to the
price of the product;  and  (h) guarantee of reasonable access levels.
6. The Argentinean paper proposes the following criteria and context for the development of an
international standard for the determination of equivalence:
• The guiding principles of the process of determining equivalence should be
gradualness, reciprocity, non-discrimination, and special consideration of historical
trade;
• the equivalence analysis must be conducted  on the product or products that are being
exported without seeking general equivalence covering the totality of the national
control system;
• the importing country should analyse the sanitary and phytosanitary measures of the
exporting country, comparing them with its own sanitary and phytosanitary measures,
with a view to achieving the appropriate level of protection;G/SPS/W/111
Page 7
• equivalence should be based on bilateral agreements, with a general part establishing
overall principles, objectives and long-term targets, and with specific annexes for theproducts traded;
• the national lists of products that could potentially be exported between the two
countries involved should be analysed at the bilateral level, with special emphasis onhistorical trade and previous refusals;
• special consideration should be given to historical trade, ensuring that it is not
interrupted during the negotiation of an equivalence agreement;
• there should be a fast-track procedure involving automatic recognition of historically
traded products, especially where there has been no previous refusal;
• distinctions should be drawn between the risk categories of products under analysis;
• low-risk products should be considered eligible for immediate equivalence;
• in the case of new products which are being exported for the first time, the procedure
for determining equivalence should be applied in its totality, leaving open the
possibility, where feasible, of using the information contained in the risk analyses
carried out by a given importing country;
• the correct information should be supplied so that the exporting country can meet the
requirement of demonstrating that its product is equivalent;
• the importing country should cooperate technically in the process of determining
equivalence;
• a standstill clause should be included in all cases, i.e. the initiation of the negotiation
of an equivalence agreement must not aggravate the situation that prevailed at the
time of initiation.
7. Argentina concludes that equivalence of control systems must be a mechanism which
guarantees market access and does not constitute an additional difficulty for developing countries.
From the point of view of the developing countries, the problem of equivalence of control systems,
presented as a matter of great technical and scientific complexity, should be kept within the confines
of the reality of bilateral trade.  The bulk of exports of a developing country is concentrated in few
products and involves very few enterprises.
Australia (G/SPS/GEN/243)
8. The Australian paper provides an example of practical recognition of equivalence.  The
Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) received an application from the Swiss Federal
Veterinary Office to amend the Australian Food Standards Code  Standard for Cheese and Cheese
Products to permit the use of raw milk in the making of some speciality cheeses for export to
Australia.  Although the Australian appropriate level of protection for food safety has not beenarticulated in a detailed statement, a recognised  long history of safe food use associated with
consumption of cheese in Australia is a well-accepted community standard.  The requirement to use
pasteurisation or thermisation plus storage has contributed to assuring this level of protection to date.
9. The Swiss application sought to demonstrate the equivalence of applied risk management
measures in achieving a level of safety in its cheese products comparable to the current Australiandomestic standard.  In the absence of a Codex standard for the determination of equivalence, the
application was addressed through the use of risk assessment.  The risk assessment concluded that
hard cheeses made according to the manufacturing process in the Swiss application attained at least
the same level of pathogen destruction as those subject to pasteurisation, while the semi-hard cheesesG/SPS/W/111
Page 8
did not.  On this basis, the Emmental, Sbrinz and Gruyere cheeses were recognised as being as safe as
those cheeses produced using pasteurised or thermised milk.  Similar permissions could be granted to
any manufacturer of raw milk cheeses, domestic or international, if they are able to demonstrate a
system that provides an equivalent level of food safety.
Chile (G/SPS/R/10)
10. In its statement, Chile reported that the trade agreement between Mercosur and Chile includes
a chapter on SPS measures and addresses detailed harmonization procedures between members'
regulations, as well as risk analysis procedures, with the appropriate references to the WTO SPS
Agreement.  Negotiation of a bilateral SPS agreement with the European Communities is expected to
be concluded shortly.  Bilateral consultations with selected Asian countries were successfully
completed and included key provisions on transparency and equivalence.
11. The Economic Cooperation Agreement between Chile and Mexico includes a chapter on the
application of many of the SPS Agreement provisions, providing bilateral implementation of concepts
of harmonisation, equivalence and risk analysis in the areas of human, animal and plant health
protection.
Egypt  (supported by Brazil, India, Me xico and the Philippines) (G/SPS/R/15)
12. Egypt stressed that the principle of equivalence is a key component of the SPS Agreement.  A
number of difficulties are encountered by developing countries due to the inadequate implementation
of this provision.  Recognition of equivalence by technologically advanced countries has become
quite demanding and in some cases serves as a sanitary trade barrier to exports from developing
countries.  Furthermore, in practice, a number of developed countries require "sameness" rather than"equivalence" of measures, a source of concern to many developing countries.  An evaluation of the
means for the effective implementation of this provision is necessary.
European Communities  (G/SPS/GEN/101)
13. Exports to the European Communities are required to meet standards at least equivalent to the
EC ones.  Recognition of equivalence is (also) necessary for the application of a regionalizationpolicy.  A Member operating a regionalization policy may seek to negotiate an equivalence agreement
which will avoid having to renegotiate access with trading partners each time a regionalization
decision is applied.  Where equivalence is acknowledged and embodied in an agreement, special
standardised sanitary and phytosanitary certificates may be used.
14. In the absence of an agreement, it is necessary to determine whether an SPS measure
implemented and maintained by an exporting Member achieves the importing Member's appropriate
level of protection.  The EC paper outlines general steps which provide a structured approach basedon risk assessment:  (a) request from the exporting Member and identification of the SPS measure for
which recognition of equivalence is sought;  (b) explanation by the importing Member of the
objective of its SPS measure, including an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of any
risks that the relevant measure is intended to address, and identification by the importing Member of
its appropriate level of protection;  (c) provision of information by the exporting Member supportingits view that its sanitary or phytosanitary measure achieves the importing Member's appropriate level
of protection;  (d) evaluation by the importing Member of whether the SPS measure of the exporting
Member achieves the appropriate level of sanitary protection of the importing Member.
15. Step (d) may include an evaluation of:  (i) the risks identified by the importing Member and
evidence provided by the exporting Member that its SPS measures effectively address those risks;  (ii)the legislative authority, standards, practices and procedures including those of laboratories, as well asG/SPS/W/111
Page 9
the programmes in place to ensure that the domestic requirements of the exporting Member and the
importing Member's requirements are met;  (iii) the documented structure of the relevant responsible
authorities, their command chain, their authority, their operational procedures and the resources
available to them;  and (iv) the performance of the relevant responsible competent authorities in
relation to the control programme and assurances.
16. The importing Member may carry out audit and verification procedures, in accordance with
Articles 4.1 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement, to assist with the assessment.  In carrying out the process
described above, trading Members should consider experience and information already acquired.
Fiji  (G/SPS/GEN/238)
17. In its paper, Fiji gives examples of positive and negative experiences dealing with
equivalence of sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  Fiji makes the following practical suggestions:
(a)  WTO and donor agencies could facilitate the enhancing of local capacity in areas such as pest riskassessment, laboratory analysis and testing in compliance with international standards and
strengthening of local institutions in the understanding of Codex standards;  and (b) importing
countries should provide sound scientific evidence on analysis carried out to justify non-acceptance of
Fiji products.  This would facilitate recognition of equivalence where the exporting country carries out
measures that will ensure exported products comply with scientifically-based importing countrystandards.
India  (G/SPS/R/15)
18. India notes that not much progress has been ma de in respect of equivalence, whether through
bilateral or multilateral agreements.  Developing countries have to be provided with an opportunity to
participate in the existing bilateral and multilater al agreements between developed countries.  As a
first step in this direction, Members should be obliged to notify to the SPS Committee of any bilateral
agreements on equivalence of SPS measures.  This would enable any developing countries who are in
a position to comply with those conditions to become  a party to the existing agreement or to enter into
a similar bilateral agreement.
New Zealand  (G/SPS/GEN/232)
19. The New Zealand paper sets out several examples of how the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry (MAF), responsible for developing and applying almost all phytosanitary measures to
imported goods, has recognized specific phytosanitary measures as providing an equivalent level of
protection to that achieved by measures originally required.
20. Countries wishing to export goods to New Zealand that may constitute a phytosanitary risk
are encouraged to, where appropriate, propose equivalent phytosanitary measures as a means ofmeeting New Zealand’s biosecurity requirements.  Equivalent treatments may be proposed either for
the whole pest complex associated with the commodity or for a specified named pest or pests.
21. The concept of equivalence relates to outcomes, not the methods used to achieve those
outcomes.  In other words, the phytosanitary measures proposed and recognized as equivalent must
deliver the level of protection against risks that is considered appropriate by the importing country inthe situation under consideration.  In practice, recognition of equivalence takes place only after
considerable dialogue between two (or more) countries.  The exporting country must provide robust
technical information to support its application fo r an importing country to recognize alternative
phytosanitary measures as providing protection against risks equivalent to that achieved by the
prescribed import requirements.G/SPS/W/111
Page 10
Philippines  (on behalf of ASEAN countries)  (G/SPS/R/15)
22. Many countries encounter problems with various standards on like products, as well as
infrastructure problems.  Although the Philippines and other countries have identified specific
technical assistance needs, they have not received responses.
Thailand  (G/SPS/GEN/242)
23. Determination of equivalence is considered by the Thai national SPS Committee to be of
great importance to trade facilitation for the country.  A wholesome equivalence process requires
collective understanding and coordinated work of all agencies concerned.  Thailand concluded one
Recognition of Equivalence Audit with Canada on fish inspection and control systems and is at the
initial steps of negotiation of equivalence agr eements on fish inspection and control systems with
several other countries.
24. The negotiation of equivalence agreements (on fish inspection and control systems) requires
careful study and consideration of such difficulties as:  (a) document review and comparison, which is
time-consuming in both the document preparation and re view on both sides;  (b) different cultures and
structures of law and difficulties in identifying a single authority for overall control of the system,
especially where more than one regulatory body is involved;  (c) differences in policy, procedures andmethods often resulting from different inspection and control systems, especially since judgement of
equivalence is still qualitative;  (d) judgement of equivalence of food control systems in different
countries (in this respect, Thailand notes the critical importance of international guidelines for a
systematic application of judgement of equivalence and stresses that Codex principles and guidelines
associated with the recognition of equivalence will  facilitate this process);  and (e) the fact that
product standards are still being used to meet the appropriate level of protection, although there are
not standards to deal with every hazard.  Additionally, meeting standards does not always guarantee
safety.
25. Thailand identifies the assessment of equivalence through audit as one of the most
challenging areas in equivalence recognition.  The success of an audit depends on consultation on thepurposes, objectives, procedures and scope between  the two countries, otherwise the exercise will
only serve to assure compliance with the standard or procedures of the importing country.  The Codex
Committee on Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection System has developed guidelines
for audit.
United States  (G/SPS/GEN/212)
26. The United States has few equivalence agreements in effect, partly due to the resource
commitments needed and the difficulty of pursuing such agreements.  The United States recognizes
that SPS measures of other Members may achieve its appropriate levels of protection.  The practical
implementation of the concept of equivalence is dependent upon a variety of factors, including: (a) the
scope (single product or product sector);  (b)  the formality of any agreement reached between the
parties, i.e., ranging from a simple exchange of letters to a formal memorandum of understanding; and(c) the number of parties involved, i.e. bilateral or multilateral.
27. In the US view, constraining factors to the use of Article 4 include:  (a) practical gains in
product trade from an equivalence determination and any associated agreement may not be worth the
costs of reaching such a determination;  (b) c onducting equivalence evaluations and negotiating
equivalence agreements involves a substantial comm itment of technical and trade specialists to review
materials, exchange data and information, establish terms and conditions of discussions, meet with
counterparts, and to conduct on-site visits and verification audits;  (c) there is an inherent difficulty
associated with linking measures to a country’s ALOP (this problem is magnified when the scope ofG/SPS/W/111
Page 11
the agreement is broadened to include multiple products and the concept of equivalence is applied to
import and export control and inspection systems);  and (d) addressing stakeholder concerns.  It is
critical that Members take every appropriate opportunity to inform stakeholders about their on-going
and intended equivalence discussions with other Members to ensure stakeholder acceptance.  The use
of an open, public forum, which respects the need for direct government-to-government negotiations,appears to be an excellent tool to facilitate consideration of the merit of seeking an equivalence
determination or agreement for particular products.
28. Equivalence agreements are not a necessary condition to gain access to another Member’s
market.  Over 85 percent of all food products imported into the United States do not require a prior
determination of equivalence and/or an export certificate.  Meat and poultry products are the primary
exceptions.  An exporting country must obtain an equivalence determination before it can export meat
or poultry to the United States.
29. The US paper suggests that the utilization of other provisions of the SPS Agreement prior to a
request for formal equivalence consultations may yield more immediate trade benefits.  WTO
Members can request an explanation for the rationa le for a specific measure in accordance with
Article 5.8.  Similarly, Members can request answers to all reasonable questions and the provision of
documents regarding a country’s existing and proposed measures under Article 7 and Annex B.Moreover, importing Members have additional obligations in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C
to assure that their approval procedures are "undertaken and completed without undue delay" and that
a procedure exists to review complaints and take  corrective actions when a complaint is justified.
Finally, developing countries may benefit more directly by requesting product-specific technical
assistance in accordance with Article 9 in order "to adjust to, and comply with, sanitary orphytosanitary measures necessary to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary
protection in their export markets".
30. Equivalence determinations require a significant investment of technical and trade experts to
address and resolve safety issues.  Even in instances where the appropriate level of protection and
governmental institutions of two WTO Members may appear to be similar, determinations ofequivalence have taken several years of negotiations and a great deal of the time of technical and trade
experts, and have not resulted in immediate new trade opportunities.
Codex  (G/SPS/GEN/210 & G/SPS/GEN/211)
31. Codex developed guidelines for the design, operation, assessment and accreditation of food
import and export inspection and certification systems.  The guidelines deal with the recognition of
equivalence of inspection and/or certification systems.
32. The application of equivalence principles may be in the form of agreements or letters of
understanding established between governments either for inspection and/or certification of
production areas, sectors or parts of sectors.  Equivalence may also be established through the
administration of a comprehensive agreement which would cover inspection and certification of all
food commodity forms traded between two or more countries.
33. Agreements on the recognition of equivalence of inspection and certification systems may
include provisions concerning:  the legislative framework, control programmes and administrative
procedures;  contact points in inspection and certification services;  demonstration by the exporting
country of the effectiveness and adequacy of its enforcement and control programmes, including
laboratories;  where relevant, lists of products or establishments subject to certification or approval,accredited facilities and accredited bodies;  mechanisms supporting continued recognition of
equivalence, e.g. exchange of information on hazards and monitoring and surveillance.G/SPS/W/111
Page 12
34. Agreements should include mechanisms to provide for periodic review and updating and
include procedural mechanisms for resolving differences arising within the framework of the
agreement.
35. Codex also developed Guidelines for the Development of Equivalence Agreements Regarding
Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems.  The guidelines provide practicalguidance for governments desiring to enter into bilateral or multilateral equivalence agreements
concerning food import and export inspection and certification systems.  Such agreements may be
binding instruments or other less formal arrangements.
36. Additionally, Codex is developing guidelines on the judgement of equivalence of sanitary
measures associated with food inspection and certification systems.  The draft guidelines note that
importing and exporting countries often operate different food inspection and certification systems
and that in such circumstances, and in order to fa cilitate trade, there is a need to determine the
effectiveness of sanitary measures of the exporting country in achieving the appropriate level of
protection of the importing country.
__________