RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/105
9 May 2000
(00-1880)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Note by the Secretariat
1. In preparation for the discussion on special a nd differential treatment at the 21-22 June 2000
meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat was requested to prepare a paper summarizing the
discussion to date of special and differential treatment in the context of the SPS Agreement.  This note
reviews the information provided by Members and observers at meetings, particularly during the
discussions related to the three-year review of the SPS Agreement, as well as information circulatedin preparation for the 1999 Ministerial Conference.  Only issues directly related to special and
differential treatment were included, since other matters identified as of interest to developing
countries, such as equivalence, will be addressed at subsequent Committee meetings.
(a) General comments on special and differential treatment (Article 10)
2. In its report on the review of the SPS Agreement, the Committee noted that it had no
information on the extent to which the special and differential treatment provided for in Articles 10.1
and 10.2 had been accorded to developing country Members, nor information on the extent to which
developing country Members had made use of any special and differential treatment accorded to
them.
1  The Committee also noted the proposals submitted by some developing country Members in
the context of the review and encouraged Memb ers to further the practical implementation of
Articles 10.1 and 10.2.  In particular, the Committee stressed that Members should, in accordance
with the provisions of Article 10.2, accord longer time-frames for compliance on products of interest
to developing country Members.
3. In various statements and submissions, Egypt, Brazil, India, Mexico and the Philippines
suggested that either Article 10 of the Agreemen t should be made mandatory and/or that specific
guidelines should be developed since this Article had not been widely implemented.2
(b) Taking into account the special needs of developing countries (Article 10.1)
4. Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salv ador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uganda raised concerns that although Article 10.1 provided that the
special needs of developing countries shall be taken into account in the preparation and application of
SPS measures, this had rarely been done.3  They proposed that if an SPS measure created a problem
for more than one developing country, then it should be withdrawn.  India suggested that if an SPSmeasure created problems for several developing countries but could not be withdrawn, the country
adopting it should reconsider it and provide the necessary technical assistance to enable developing
countries to adapt.  In India's view, SPS measures were often invoked in a discriminatory manner to
                                                     
1 G/SPS/12 refers.
2 G/SPS/R/15, paras. 34-37, G/SPS/GEN/85 and G/SPS/GEN/128 refer.
3 In the context of the preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, WT/GC/W/109,
WT/GC/W/202  and WT/GC/W/354 refer.G/SPS/W/105
Page 2
the detriment of international trade, particularly trade originating from developing and least-
developed countries.  Developing country constraints such as lack of adequate infrastructure,
technology, finance and skilled manpower led to diff iculties in complying with trading partners' SPS
measures.   This resulted in restricted market access, especially since countries often found it difficult
to adjust to frequently changing SPS measures. 4
5. Guatemala stated that for developing countries, compliance with commitments under the SPS
Agreement was not necessarily hindered by lack of financial resources, equipment or sophisticated
infrastructures, but by a lack of understanding of the Agreement, the absence of an operational
framework for the authorities responsible for administering the Agreement; and by limited
participation in competent bodies and in the WTO's SPS Committee.5
6. In October 1998, the observer from the Codex informed the Committee that the Codex
Committee on General Principles (CCGP) had discussed special and differential treatment fordeveloping countries.
6  The CCGP stressed that it was important not to differentiate standards and
compromise consumer safety aspects in the application of special and differential treatment to
developing countries.
(c) Longer time frames for compliance (Article 10.2)
7. Egypt, Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines highlighted that there was little information
regarding whether Members were, in fact, providing longer time frames for compliance on products
of interest to developing countries.7  Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sr i Lanka and Uganda suggested that Article 10.2
should be modified to include a mandatory period of at least 12 months between the date of
notification and the entry into force for SPS measures on products from developing countries.8
Zambia, Jamaica, Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe informally supported the view that Article 10.2
had not been complied with, and proposed making it more binding, if necessary.
(d) Time-limited exceptions (Article 10.3)
8. India proposed extending the transition period during which developing and least-developed
countries could delay the implementation of the Agreement.  In India's view, this would allowdeveloping country Members to gradually bring their standards into conformity with international
standards, while also giving them time to forge equivalence agreements with developed country
Members.  This could be done in the context of Article 10.3, which provided for time-limited
exceptions.
9
(e) Participation in the relevant intern ational organizations (Article 10.4)
9. Egypt, Brazil, India, Mexico and the Philippines stressed that the participation of developing
countries in international standard-setting bodies remained inadequate.10  As a result, international
standards were often adopted without taking into account the problems and constraints facing
developing countries.  India noted that the lack of specific international standards for many products
                                                     
4 G/SPS/GEN/85 refers.
5 G/SPS/R/17, para. 30; G/SPS/GEN/157 refers.
6 G/SPS/R/12, para. 73.
7 G/SPS/R/15, paras. 34-37, G/SPS/GEN/128 refers.
8 In the context of the preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, WT/GC/W/109,
WT/GC/W/202 and WT/GC/W/354 refer.
9 G/SPS/GEN/85 refers.
10 G/SPS/R/15, paras. 34-37, G/SPS/GEN/128 and WT/GC/W/202 (preparation for the 1999
Ministerial Conference) refer.G/SPS/W/105
Page 3
of interest to developing countries, as well as many importing countries' failure to specify their
appropriate levels of protection, were hurdles to increasing exports.11  
10. Kenya and Egypt made the point that active participation in standard setting required
adequate institutional infrastructure, human and financial resources and effective follow-up
capabilities.12  Jamaica proposed that WTO Members should establish a joint fund with the purpose of
assisting developing countries to increase their participation in the work of the SPS Committee and in
the international standard-setting bodies.13
11. Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salv ador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uganda suggested that standards should only be recognized by the
Agreement if the participation of countries from different geographical areas and levels of
development had been ensured in their formulation, and if the specific conditions prevailing in
developing countries had been taken into account.14  This proposal was informally supported by
Jamaica, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
12. The observer from Codex, reporting on the twenty-third session of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission in July 1999, emphasized that 103 member countries had participated, including a large
number of developing countries.15
__________
                                                     
11 G/SPS/GEN/85 refers.
12 In the context of the preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, WT/GC/W/233 and
WT/GC/W/109 refer.
13 In the context of the preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, WT/GC/W/371 refers.
14 In the context of the preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, WT/GC/W/354 refers.
15 Codex Alimentarius Commission, Report of the Twenty-Third Session , Rome, 28 June – 3 July 1999.