. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/139
2 November 1999
(99-4726)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
ARTICLES 6(2), 6(3) AND ANNEX A (3)(B): RECOGNITION OF THE CONCEPT
OF PEST- OR DISEASE-FREE AREAS AS AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD,
GUIDELINE OR RECOMMENDATION
Submission by South Africa
Introduction1. Article 3(1) of the SPS Agreement requires that Members shall base their sanitary or
phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations where they exist.
Should a country impose a higher standard than the international standard, it must be scientifically
justified (Article 3(3)).
2. In Article 6(2) Members are required to recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas
while in Article 6(3), Members are required to provide evidence of disease-free areas.  In the
preamble, Article 3(4) and Annex A (3) of the Agr eement, the international organizations accepted by
the WTO as international standard-setting organizations, are indicated (Codex Alimentarius, OIE and
IPPC).
Deliberation
3. Should a country declare a zone within its territory or the country in total to be free from a
specific disease without the involvement of, or in accordance with, the guidelines of an international
standard-setting organization, it can reasonably be accepted that the importing country would require
evidence thereof in terms of Article 6(3).  Further evidence in terms of Article 6(3) would also be
necessary where a specific procedure or international guideline for declaration for zoning or freedomfrom disease does not exist or has not yet been adop ted or not applied by an international standard-
setting organization for a specific disease.  However, if a country is officially  recognized as disease-
free by an international standard-setting organization and the allocated status is officially  made known
and published by such an international standard-setting organization, the request is that the status
allocated by the international organization should also be recognized in terms of Article 6(2) of theAgreement.
4. The OIE has specific procedures in place for the official recognition of freedom from Foot-
and-Mouth Disease, Rinderpest  and Contagious Bovine Pleu ropneumonia (CBPP).  The OIE
International Animal Health Code does make provision for other diseases where certain guidelines are
proposed according to which a country can regard its territory to be free from a particular disease.However, the "status" of self-assessed freedom from disease relative to that of FMD, Rinderpest and
CBPP should be perceived as different.
5. When the OIE recognizes a country or a zone within a country, as free from Foot-and-Mouth
Disease, the Foot-and-Mouth Disease and other Ep izootics Commission of the OIE only do it after a
thorough investigation and a detailed evaluation.  Allocation of freedom on recommendation by theFMD and other Epizootics Commission of the OIE is also only done by the International Committee
of the OIE during its meeting in May every year.   It can thus be reasoned that the official  recognitionG/SPS/GEN/139
Page 2
of free zones within a country by an international standard-setting organiza tion (e.g. OIE) should also
be perceived as an international standard and recognized and accepted as such by WTO Members.
6. It, however, happens that some countries support a vote in favour of allocation of freedom to
a requesting Member country of the OIE at the meetings of the International Committee of the OIE,
but during bilateral trade negotiations, refuse to  acknowledge the allocated status. South Africa does
not question the right of a Member to request further evidence in terms of Article 6(3) of the
Agreement.  It is however regarded as unnecessary to totally disregard the decision of the
international organization by requesting a Member to submit all the evidence again as if the Member
has never been allocated such a status. The eviden ce that was already submitted to an international
organization and the findings of the scientific investigation by that organization should be taken as
given and recognized as such.
7. South Africa is of the opinion that the non-recognition of the officially allocated status for
freedom from disease, can be regarded as a trade restrictive measure in terms of Article 2(3) of the
Agreement.
8. The view of South Africa is that the three international standard-setting organizations referred
to in the preamble, Article 3(4) and Annex (3) of the Agreement should be allocated the status they
deserve as accepted standard-setting organizations on scientific and technical matters for the SPSCommittee.
9. South Africa would therefore respectfully request the Committee to express an opinion on the
status of a decision of an international organization to officially  allocate freedom from disease to a
Member country of that organization who is also a Member of the WTO.
__________