G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
20 September 2019  
(19-6105) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
ARTICLE 6 OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUS SION  
COMPILATION OF COMME NTS SUBMITTED BY MEM BERS1 
Note by the Secretariat2 
Revision  
Brazil, the European Union and the United States of America submitted a communication 
(G/SPS/W/311 ), circulated on 8 March 2019, requesting Members, as well as the  IPPC and OIE, to 
review a set of questions and provide comments through the Secretariat by 10 May 2019. 
Subsequently, the co -sponsors of the submission invited all interested Members , as well as the IPPPC 
and OIE, to submit replies to the questions contai ned in proposal G/SPS/W/311 , as well as comments 
on the questions, by 14 J une 2019.  Following the SPS Committee meeting  in July 2019 , Members 
were invited to submit additional comments by 6 September 2019.3 The additional responses 
received from Argentina and Turkey have been incorporated in this revised compilation.  
Japan  requested clarifications to one of the questions contained in the proposal. Specifically, t he last 
question addressed  to Members in para. 3(a) of proposal G/SPS/ W/311  which reads:  
▪ "How do you use IPPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by anot her Member or Member(s), 
have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied consistently? Are 
there areas where additional clarification in the international standards or guidelines would 
be beneficial?"  
In response, t he co -sponsors clar ified the following:  
▪ The first sentence of the question should be clarified to read: "How do you as an importing 
country  use IPPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free country or zone status of an exporting 
country  in implementing Article 6? ..." 
▪ The second sentence intends to ask whether an exporting Member has found the same 
international standard interpreted differently by its trading partners (e.g. importing 
Members).  
This document provides a compilation of the replies to the questions , and comments on the 
questions, as submitted by  the following  Members : Argentina; Brazil; Canada; China; the European 
Union; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Mexico; Chinese Taipei;  Turkey  and Ukraine . The questions in the 
proposal, as well  as the replies received, were the basis for discussions at the informal meeting on 
17 July 2019 and will be further discussed in the context of the Fifth Review.  
 
1 Comments submitted by the OIE and IPPC are available in documents G/SPS/W/311/Add.2 , 
G/SPS/W/311/Add.2/Corr.1  and G/SPS/W/311/Add.3 , respectively.  
2 This document  has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and  is without prejudice 
to the positions  of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
3 The deadline was further extended to 13 September 2019.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  QUESTIONS FOR MEMBER S 
1.1  Argentina  
What are your domestic procedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status? What challenges have you encountered in implementing such procedures?  
1.1.  Based on its experience as an exporting country regarding the process applied by importing 
countries or blocs to adopt the OIE's official recognition of a country or area as pest  or disease -free, 
Argentina considers that it is necessary to highlight the following, taking as an example the 
recognition of areas free from foot and mouth disease (with or without vaccination) in o ur country . 
1.2.  Markets such as the European Union, Chile, the United States, Canada, Mexico and Japan, have 
applied their own assessment processes that are independent from the one carried out by the OIE, 
which generally involve on -site inspections or audits.  In some cases, these processes have lasted 
over ten years and have required Argentina to bring the matter before the WTO, and deal with the 
delays and resources (human and financial) that this entails. However, these existing dispute 
settlement processes,  and the ensuing penalties, do not necessarily facilitate trade.  
1.3.  In general, the main elements of this process that result in delays, costs and trade barriers are 
as follows:  
1. The institutional and sanitary -related information required by the different coun tries or blocs 
(questionnaires) is not consistent. Each country requests different information and compiles 
this information differently.  
2. These questionnaires are extensive. Given the length of time required for the replies to be 
drafted, translated and su bsequently examined, updated and additional information often 
has to be provided.  
3. The information provided must be translated into the language of the destination country or 
bloc. This process is costly and, depending on the language, may be complicated.  
4. The assessment carried out by the importing country or bloc is contingent on its priorities 
and available resources.  
5. The process involves different stages and time frames, depending on the importing country 
or bloc.  
6. In most cases, the inspections conducted require logistical organization and the availability 
of funds.  
7. The completion of such inspections is contingent on the priorities and available resources of 
the importing country or bloc. Sometimes, inspections are delayed for up to one year or 
more.  
8. Once an inspection has been carried out, time is required to prepare preliminary reports, 
issue observations and draft the final report.  
9. Following the approval of a report, some countries need to formalize the recognition granted 
through the adoption of a regul atory instrument, which means that it takes even longer for 
this recognition to take effect.  
1.4.  Furthermore, and as demonstrated above, these processes and time frames are not 
standardized. They are subjective and do not allow for predictability in terms of m arket openness. 
It can be concluded that such procedures not only depend on sanitary related factors but are also 
influenced by other political and trade components.  
1.5.  Regarding plant health, in Argentina, the procedures implemented to establish and maintain  
the status of areas that are free of or have low prevalence of fruit fly are in line with International 
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM FAO) Nos. 30/2008 and 26/2006, respectively. These 
guidelines were incorporated into Argentine law through s pecific legislation on the matter.  
1.6.  In general, the difficulties that arise are related to time frames and the efforts involved in 
negotiating with importing countries to obtain their recognition of these areas, in addition to the G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  economic and financial eff orts required for developing countries to achieve and maintain the 
necessary phytosanitary conditions.  
What kind of Committee activities and documents are most useful to you in your domestic 
consultations on implementation of Article 6?  
1.7.  Not applicable.  
Have you used the Committee's Guidelines on Regionalization ( G/SPS/48 ) in your e fforts 
to seek recognition by another Member of your domestic control and enforcement systems 
for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free status? Are there areas of the 
Guidelines that could be improved?  
1.8.  While the general considerations in the Guidelines state that, "Members should proceed with a 
recognition process without undue delay", it would be highly relevant to be able to agree on and 
establish maximum time limits for each of the stages of the process to recognize th e phytosanitary 
status of an area, which are described in the section "Typical Administrative steps in the Recognition 
Process", in order to expedite the recognition process and avoid undue delays.  
How do you use IPPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free cou ntry or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another Member or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where additional clarification in the int ernational standards 
or guidelines would be beneficial?  
1.9.  Regarding the fruit fly, in general, there have been no interpretation issues at the technical 
level. However, as mentioned above, there has been a long record of negotiations on the recognition 
of pest - or disease -free areas which have lasted over ten years. It would therefore be very beneficial 
to be able to establish maximum time limits for the different assessment stages, in order to rapidly 
obtain recognition without undue delay.  
1.2  Brazil  
What are your domestic procedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status?  
1.10.   The procedures followed by the Brazilian sanitary authority for the establishment and 
maintenance of disease -free areas or zones are based on those est ablished by the OIE Terrestrial 
Code, Chapter 4.3 and on specific chapters for diseases with zoning.  
1.11.   Following these regulations, the internal rules for the establishment of regionalization and the 
rules for the transit of animals and products are publishe d. The main procedures are:  
▪ The extension and geographical limits of an area are clearly established by the Veterinary 
Authority on the basis of natural, artificial or legal limits and made public through official 
channels.  
▪ Herds belonging to subpopulation s of disease -free areas or zones should be recognizable 
through clear epidemiological separation of other animals and all other risk factors.  
▪ Measures to ensure identification of the sub -population and to establish and maintain their 
health status through a biosafety plan are clearly documented and adequate to the eco -
productive and epidemiological characteristics of the sub -population, including surveillance, 
movement controls, use of natural, artificial, or legal limits, spatial separation of animals, 
control of fomites and commercial practices of handling and management.  
▪ Relevant goods must be identified in such a way that their movements are traceable and 
well documented and controlled.  
▪ For compartmentalization, the biosafety plan should describe the par tnership between 
private sector and the Veterinary Authority, as well as their respective responsibilities. It 
should also describe the standard operational procedures in order to provide clear evidence 
that surveillance, animal identification and traceabi lity system and management practices G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  are appropriate to meet the compartmentalization definition. The biosafety plan should 
describe how the measures will be audited to ensure that risks are managed and reassessed 
regularly, and that the measures are adjus ted accordingly.  
What challenges have you encountered in implementing such procedures?  
1.12.   Regionalization is a very important principle for animal health management in Brazil, 
considering the large territorial extension and the geographical and environmental diversity in 
Brazilian territory. These factors represent major challenges, since they require large investments 
in livestock registration controls and movement of animals and products, with a view to guaranteeing 
adequate regionalization conditions. There  is a need for strong structures and procedures by the 
veterinary services and for disease surveillance, including the early detection of diseases and also 
the demonstration of absence of infectious agents, as a way of ensuring the sanitary condition and 
the certification of goods from zones or regions.  
1.13.   In addition to these, another major challenge is to obtain recognition of disease -free zones or 
areas from importing countries, which often do not consider a recognition of health status from OIE, 
demanding efforts and costs to answer questionnaires from importing countries and organize 
missions and audits, sometimes without justified technical reasons.  
What kind of Committee activities and documents are most useful to you in your domestic 
consultations on im plementation of Article 6?  
1.14.   In the case of animal health, the Department of Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Livestock and Supply (DSA/MAPA) routinely applies the guidelines of the relevant international 
organizations, particularly the Terrestr ial Code and other documents of the OIE. In that sense, it has 
not yet specifically used the documents published by the SPS Committee.  
Have you used the Committee's Guidelines on Regionalization ( G/SPS/48 ) in your efforts 
to seek recognition by another Member of your domesti c control and enforcement systems 
for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free status?  
1.15.   In the case of animal health, the Department of Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Livestock and Supply routinely applies the guidelines of the rele vant international organizations, 
particularly the Terrestrial Code and other documents of the OIE, as well as guidelines from the 
IPPC. In that sense, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) has not yet used 
the Guidelines on Regiona lization ( G/SPS/48 ) in its efforts to recognize disease - and pest -free areas 
in other countries.  
Are there areas of the Guidelines that could be improved?  
1.16.   The procedures for the recognition of disease - and pest -free areas by importing countries 
should be harmonized with the procedures for recognition of regionalization status by th e OIE and 
the IPPC, thus avoiding duplicate efforts by member countries in order to recognize disease -free 
areas. In the case of  OIE official disease -free country or zone status, member countries should 
recognize the status granted by OIE.  
How do you use I PPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another Member or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently?  
1.17.   In the case of OIE official disease -free country or zone status, Brazil considers that most of 
the standards adopted by the Terrestrial Code and other OIE documents are properly interpreted 
and implemented by Brazil for the establishment of regionalization and sa fe trade in food.  
1.18.   These standards are always undergoing a revision process, with broad consultation and 
participation of the member countries, allowing advances in procedures and standards for trade. 
However, there are discrepancies in interpretation by co untries and economic blocs. For example, 
some countries or blocs do not accept the health status recognized by the OIE for disease -free 
countries or zones.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Are there areas where additional clarification in the international standards or guidelines 
would be  beneficial?  
1.19.   The procedures for countries' recognition of regionalization in what regards disease - and pest -
free areas should always be improved with the participation of importing and exporting countries.  
1.3  Canada  
1.20.   Canada considers the topic of regionalizati on one that is important and timely. Canada 
submitted a paper ( G/SPS/GEN/1650 ) to the Committee on its experiences and approaches to 
regionalization relating to animal diseases in October 2018. Canada supports the continued 
discussion of regionalization by the Committee, in particular through the questions for discussion 
identified in the proposal from Brazil, the European Union, and the U nited States of America in 
G/SPS/W/311 . Canada looks forward to engaging i n a focused discussion based on these questions 
at the July 2019 informal meeting of the Committee.  In advance of the July 2019 informal, Canada 
submits the following summary of its approach to regionalization.  
Animal health  
1.21.   To prevent the spread of disea ses and maintain international trade, Canada manages animal 
health risks by determining if zones are required based on the unique circumstances of each disease 
situation. Some factors that Canada includes in this determination are the nature of the disease , 
presence of the disease in wildlife or the environment, potential for disease spread and geographical 
features in the area (i.e., waterways, roads, terrain). Zoning is one tool within a suite of measures 
that Canada uses to respond to animal diseases dom estically.  
Plant health  
1.22.   Pest free areas (PFAs) are a tool within a suite of measures that Canada uses to domestically 
manage plant health risks and to maintain trade by preventing the spread of pests. For each 
situation, Canada determines if the establishm ent of pest free areas or areas of low pest prevalence 
is applicable based on the results of pest risk analyses and domestic surveys. Canada takes measures 
for the implementation of pest free areas or areas of low pest prevalence based on the relevant 
standards, guidelines, or recommendations adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention 
such as the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 4 Requirements for the 
establishment of pest free areas  and ISPM 8 Determination of pest sta tus in an area . 
1.4  China  
How do you use IPPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6?  
1.23.   As a member of IPPC and OIE, China always respects and actively implements the rules and 
standards of IPPC and OIE relating to th e Article 6. Based on the guiding principles and official 
recognition of OIE, China has recognized foot and mouth (FMD) free areas of some Members after 
scientific assessment.  
1.24.   Regarding the control and management of animal disease, China has been applying the 
regionalization instrument in accordance with the guiding principles of OIE and promoting continuous 
innovation in light of China 's actual situation. In this regard, China has formulated and promulgated 
the construction requirements for establishing FMD free zone of vaccination. The construction of 
FMD free zones of some Members has been accomplished and some of them have been recognized 
as FMD -free zone s by China after scie ntific assessment. Consultations with other Members on a 
memorandum of cooperation on the construction of FMD -free zones are under way.  
1.25.   In accordance with the OIE guiding principles, regionalization should also be treated and 
applied scientifically. For di sease s of avian influenza and African Swine Fever etc., which are very 
difficult to be prevented from spreading by natural physical barriers, Members should be cautious to 
apply the regionalization management method.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.5  European Union  
What are your domestic p rocedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status? What challenges have you encountered in implementing such procedures?  
1.26.   Within the European Union,  goods, including live animals, plants, products of animal and plant 
origin, move freel y among the EU member States. The relevant legislation (animal health, plant 
health, food safety) is harmonized  at European Union level, it is legally binding for all the EU member 
States and lays down the requirements for intra -community trade, placing on  the EU market and 
imports.  
1.27.   The European Commission, based on the information received from the EU member States  
and verified via on -site audits, takes regionalization  measures, including the establishment and 
maintenance of pest - and disease -free status, in a science -based, harmonized  and transparent way.  
1.28.   The criteria for regionalization  are based on relevant international standards (OIE, IPPC) in 
line with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. The disease status and related trade restrictions are 
published in the Official Journal of the E uropean Union in the form of a Commission Decision that is 
legally binding and immediately applicable.  
1.29.   As an example, for ASF the overarching piece of legislation providing the tool for the control 
of African swine  fever in the E uropean Union is Council Directive 2002/60/EC of 27 June 2002. Within 
this framework, Commission Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU of 9 October 2014 covers the 
latest specific regionalization  measures taken with respect to evolution of the African swine fever 
(ASF) in the E uropean Union. This is complemented by working document SANTE/7112/2015,4 which 
present s in a transparent manner guiding principles for the application of such regionalization 
measures and has been developed to lay down the  principles and criteria for geographically and 
temporally defining ASF regionalization . 
1.30.   The animal and plant health situation in the E uropean Union is periodically and frequently 
monitored through the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed ( PAFF) which plays 
a key role in ensuring that EU measures on food and feed safety, animal health and welfare as well 
as plant health are relevant, practical and effective. The PAFF Committee delivers opinions on draft 
measures that the Commission intends t o adopt.5 It is composed by representatives of all 
EU countries and presided by a European Commission representative. The PAFF Committee's 
mandate covers the entire food supply chain - from animal health issues on the farm to the product 
on the consumer's table - helping the European Union to deal effectively and timely with health risks 
at every stage of the production chain and changes as and when needed.  
1.31.   An overview of the EU regionalization  system for animal health based on the example of Avian 
Influenza was presented at the thematic session on regionalization of July 2017. The presentation 
is available on the WTO SPS website.6 Previously, a description of the application of Article 6 as 
regards animal diseases was presented by the E uropean Union in document G/SPS/GEN/1159  of 
26 June 2012.  
1.32.   The basic EU plant health legislation (Regulation (EU) 2016/2031) deals with regionalization  
in the plant health area in relation to both the intra -Community trade and importation to the 
European Union. An overview of the EU  system for regionalization  in relation to plant health was 
presented at the thematic session on Pest -Free Areas of February 2018. The presentation is available 
on the WTO SPS website.7 
 
4 https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/ad_control -measures_asf_wrk -doc-sante -
2015-7112.pdf . 
5 For more information se e Comitology Register 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=OpenData.list . 
6 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop11july17_e/gavinelli.pdf . 
7 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop27feb18_e/arijs.pdf . G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 7 - 
 
  What kind of Committee activities and documents are most useful to you  in your domestic 
consultations on implementation of Article 6?  
1.33.   All documents and activities of the SPS Committee are useful for the Commission services in 
their regulatory activities. Thematic discussions on animal and plant health issues, whether general  
or specific, are also very helpful in informing the EU regulatory activities in these areas and to learn 
about other Members ' systems and procedures.  
Have you used the Committee's Guidelines on Regionalization ( G/SPS/48 ) in your efforts 
to seek recognition by another Member of your domestic control and enforcement systems 
for esta blishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free status?  Are there areas of the 
Guidelines that could be improved?  
1.34.   The Guidelines are used regularly and systematically when the E uropean Union and its 
Member States are seeking recognition and maintenance of t he pest - or disease -free status of the 
European Union and/or certain parts of it for the purpose of export. The WTO SPS provisions and 
relevant guidelines are also taken into account when the European Union  negotiates SPS provisions 
with other trade partners (free trade agreements or other sanitary/phytosanitary agreements).  
1.35.   The Guidelines, together with the specific OIE and IPPC standards, are generally considered 
as a good and clear basis for negotiations with trading partners on market access related issues, 
although on many occasions the procedure turned out to be slow and cumbersome. The E uropean 
Union's  experience is that the expedited process described under chapter IV of the guidelines is 
rarely used by some Members. In addition, the entire procedure for establishing pest and 
disease -free areas needs to be repeated after every outbreak, even when it is an outbreak of  the 
same disease under similar circumstances.  
1.36.   The E uropean Union is of the view that t he guidelines do not need modification/improvement. 
Instead, what is required is their appropriate implementation by all Members.  
How do you use IPPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to se ek recognition by another Member or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where additional clarification in the international standards 
or guidelines would be beneficial?  
1.37.   The E uropean  Union's experience as an importing Member:  
1.38.   There is detailed legislation on the criteria of approval of a country or part of the country for 
import of live animals, plant and products to the European Union and the sanitary requirements to 
be met.8 It is r egularly revised in light of the animal health, plant health and food safety situation of 
the exporting country.  
1.39.   The application of regionalization  requires confidence in the other Member 's measures and 
policies on controlling animal and plant diseases. Pr evious knowledge on the animal and plant health 
situation in the given Member and the capacity to control and eliminate the disease outbreaks are 
determining factors. The main principle is that imported goods have to meet the same criteria as 
the ones prod uced in the E uropean Union. 
1.40.   For plant health, the European Union accepts declarations from other Members on the pest 
free status provided they are based on IPPC standards. For animal health, the European Union asks 
for documentary evidence and carries out an evaluation both on paper and if appropriate in the form 
of on the spot audits.  
1.41.   The European Union recognizes  the regionalization  principle vis -à-vis trade partners with the 
objective of allowing trade to continue from disease -free areas, whilst restricting trade from affected 
areas. Thus, safe trade is maintained whi lst risk of spread of disease is minimized . 
 
8 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tradehelp/sanitary -and-phytosanitary -requirements . G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.42.   The E uropean Union's experience as an exporting Member:  
1.43.   The European Union has a mixed experience as an exporting Member; only a few Members 
recognize  fully the EU regionalization  principles and measures; others only apply the regionalization  
principles partially and sporadically vis -à-vis the European Union or do not apply them directly. 
Consequently, when a major disease outbreak occurs in a member State of the European Union, 
trading partners ban the exports of relevant products from the entire territory of an affected member 
State, instead of targeting the affected area alone. Moreover, such a countrywide trade ban is often 
kept in place for several years without taking into  account the improvements in the health status of 
the country/region there is no automatic re -opening after the country/region is declared free from 
the disease. Other trading partners apply regionalization  principles partially (only for some 
diseases/ member States) and/or very slowly.  
1.44.   The E uropean Union will continue asking trading partners to recognize  the regionalization  
measures as implemented in the E uropean Union and thus to allow trade from areas not affected 
with animal diseases.  
1.45.   International stand ards:  
1.46.   The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the IPPC standards together with the WTO SPS 
Regionalization  Guidelines are clear and provide a good basis for assessing trading partners ' 
regionalization  measures.  
1.6  Hong Kong, China  
What are your domestic pr ocedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status? What challenges have you encountered in implementing such procedures?  
1.47.   The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation (AFCD) is the competent authority 
of Hong Kong, China fo r the control of animals, plants and their products (except food products 
which is under the jurisdiction of Food and Environmental Hygiene Department). AFCD follows the 
recommendations of OIE with regards to reporting of animal diseases that are detected in the local 
territory, imposing sanitary controls to prevent the introduction of diseases and pathogens, 
enhancing the veterinary services (such as laboratory for equine disease testing, development of 
testing for exotic disease such as African Swine Feve r), proposal of enhancing animal welfare 
standards through legislation.  
1.48.   There is legislation in place to ensure the report of notifiable diseases, import control of 
animals/plants and their products. There are also veterinary inputs (both from AFCD and veterinary 
consultants), liaison with OIE/ overseas competent authorities r elated to animal diseases to ensure 
AFCD is kept up -to-date with the local and global disease status. On the request by the importing 
countries/places, the overseas competent authori ties are also invited for inspection and other 
relevant procedures to demonstrate the disease -free status of animals (e.g. racehorses) in 
Hong Kong, China. 
What kind of Committee activities and documents are most useful to you in your domestic 
consultations on implementation of Article 6?  
1.49.   AFCD 's mainly referred  to the established OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Terrestrial 
Manual in the development of import requirements for animals and animal products. The World 
Animal Health Information System of OIE is also referred to for world -wide diseases situation.  
Have you used the Committee's Guidelines on Regionalization ( G/SPS/48 ) in your  efforts 
to seek recognition by another Member of your domestic control and enforcement systems 
for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free status?  Are there areas of the 
Guidelines that could be improved?  
1.50.   No. G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 9 - 
 
  How do you use IPPC/OIE official pe st- or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another Member or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where additional c larification in the international standards 
or guidelines would be beneficial ? 
1.51.   AFCD does consider the OIE official disease -free status in drafting import terms for various 
live animals from different member countries. In exercising Article 6 of the SPS Agr eement, AFCD 
takes into account the OIE disease -free country or zone status of an exporting country in deriving 
the import requirements of different animal species.  
1.52.   On the phytosanitary side, AFCD recognizes 'pest free areas ' and 'areas of low pest 
prevale nce' established under various relevant International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 
(ISPMs) (e.g. 4, 8, 10, 22, 26) as guided by the ISPM29 (Recognition of pest free areas and areas 
of low pest prevalence).  These ISPMs produced by the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of 
the IPPC are well written and no further clarifications are required. Nonetheless, no exporting country 
has ever claimed pest -free or low pest prevalence status when exporting plant commod ities to Hong 
Kong, China and vice versa.  
1.7  Japan9 
Japan's comments  
1.53.   Before concluding whether the guidelines on regionalization ( G/SPS/48 ) are to be reviewed 
or not, Japan suggests for Members to check and discuss how the existing guidelines have been 
used in particular regionalization endeavors and whether the guidelines have actual ly been applied 
bilaterally because once we go into the detail of review of the guidelines, we could spend 
considerable time and resources to complete this activit y. 
Japan's enquiries  
1.54.   About the last question for Members : "How do you use IPPC/OIE official p est- or disease -free 
country or zone status in implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another 
Member or Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where additional clarification in the international standards or 
guidelines would be beneficial?"  
▪ (Question 1) Is the 1st sentence of this question intended to be answered from the standpoint 
of export ing countries, instead of importing countries?  
▪ (Question 2) Could you clarify the inten tion of the 2nd sentence of the same question? Please 
clarify whether this question is asking if : 
1) An exporting Member has found the same international standard interpreted 
differently by its trading partners (e.g. importing Members) ? or  
2) An exporting Member has found that an importing Member interprets the same 
international standards differently in some cases ? 
What are your domestic procedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status? What challenges have you encounter ed in implementing such procedures?  
1.55.   Concerning animal health, Japan recovers the disease -free status o f the whole country after 
the occurrence of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Avian Influenza (AI) by implementing the 
countermeasures according to the cri teria for recovering the disease -free status of OIE code.  
1.56.   For instance, FMD occurred in Miyazaki Prefecture in April 2010, which was the first case in 
Japan for the last 10 years. Because the rapid spread of the disease was observed in  the eastern 
 
9 Japan provided two submissions, the first submission included general comments, as  well as a request 
for clarification of one of the questions. Please refer to the introductory paragraphs of this document for the 
clarification provided by the co -sponsors. The second submission responded to the questions indicated in 
G/SPS/W/311 . G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 10 - 
 
  part of the Prefecture despite the implementation of the movement restriction and stamping -out 
policy , over 210 thousand animals were culled eventually. Emergency vaccination was applied for 
the first time in Japan to contain the rapid spread in t he zone (87 thousand animals were vaccinated 
and slaughtered). And then, Japan recovered the status of FMD free country where vaccination is 
not practiced in February 2011.  
1.57.   In regard of plant health, the movement of pests and their hosts from the limited i nfested 
area in Japan, African Giant Snails in Ryukyu islands for example, is restricted. Where pests that are 
newly introduced in Japan or that already occur in a part of Japan potentially cause enormous 
damage to farm crops, or are considered to prevent the export of plant from Japan, they are subject 
to official control, including surveillance of the pest occurrence, restriction on the host plants 
movement, and destruction of the host plants to contain or eradicate the pests. Japan succeeded in 
eliminati ng Oriental fruit flies and Melon flies from  the whole country, and still maintains free status 
of both pests.  
What kind of Committee activities and documents are most useful to you in your domestic 
consultations on implementation of Article 6?  
1.58.   For domesti c and international transparency purposes, standard procedures for approval for 
import of products from other countries ha ve been developed , taking into account the Guidelines on 
Regionalization (G/SPS/48 ), as well as relevant international standards such as Import Risk Anal ysis 
(Terrestrial Animal Health Code Chapter 2.1) of OIE.  
1.59.   International standards of OIE and IPPC are cited more often in domestic consultation 
regarding approval of import s of specific products from other countries than SPS Committee 
documents.  
Have you u sed the Committee's Guidelines on Regionalization (G/SPS/48 ) in your efforts 
to seek recognition by another Member of your domestic control and enforcement systems 
for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free status?  Are there areas of the 
Guidelines that could be improved?  
1.60.   Japan requests the importing country to inform u s of the necessary process and the 
requirements to enable the export of Japanese products to the country in accordance with the 
Guidelines on Regionalization (G/SPS/48 ). 
How do you use IPPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another Member or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where additional clarification in the international standards 
or guidelines would be beneficial?  
1.61.   Instead of answering part of the risk assessment questionnaire from Japan (e.g. information 
on the disease outbreaks and responses taken during the past cases), the exporting country may 
use the dossier submitted to the OIE for application for recognition of animal disease free status. As 
for plants, IPP C does not officially recognize pest free status.  
1.62.   Regarding the question of the second sentence, the Japanese authority does not possess 
sufficient information to compare each country 's interpretation o f the international standards.  
1.63.   Lastly, the Japanese Government views that capacity building activities for Members, creating 
manuals or training materials that help establishing and maintaining the disease or pest free areas 
in accordance with the OIE or IP PC standards, for instance, and information -sharing on how the 
guideline is actually applied by Members would greatly contribute, rather than its further clarification 
and detailing, in order to promote implementation of regionalization.  
1.64.   The IPPC Internati onal Symposium for Pest -Free Areas and Surveillance held in Japan in 
October this year is one of such activities that aim to better understand pest-free areas  and to 
develop the ability of Members.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.8  Mexico  
What are your domestic procedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status? What challenges have you encountered in implementing such procedures?  
1.65.   For animals:  We have a technical evaluation procedure for the recognition of animal 
disease -free and pest -free zones, which is available to the general public. This procedure was 
established in accordance with national laws and following the recommendations of the Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code - World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Chapter 4.3.  
1.66.   Actions taken to maintain  disease - or pest -free zones are based on the recommendations 
issued by the OIE in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the requirements contained in national 
legislation (release agreements and campaign -related laws). There is a federal budget for 
maint aining these zones. These funds are intended for implementing preventive and control 
measures.  
1.67.   Improvement of processes has posed a significant challenge for national veterinary services 
because the necessary information is dispersed in a wide range of sou rces and the recommendations 
issued by international agencies only consider a minimum of information.  
1.68.   For plants : Internal procedures for declaring and maintaining the status of disease -free or 
pest-free zones in Mexico are the Official Mexican Standards, which are listed below : 
1. Mexican Official Standard NOM -069-FITO-1995 on the establishment and recognition of 
pest-free areas ; 
2. Mexican Official Standard NOM -023-FITO-1995 establishing the National Campaign Against 
Fruit Flies.  
1.69.   These procedures are thus in line with International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 
(ISPM):  
1. ISPM 26: Establishment of pest -free areas for fruit flies ( Tephritidae ); 
2. ISPM 4: Requirements for the establishment of pest -free areas.  
1.70.   Some challenges faced in maintaining these zones ar e the costs involved and legal oversight.  
What kind of Committee activities and documents are most useful to you in your domestic 
consultations on implementation of Article 6?  
1.71.   For animals : Workshops, courses, debates and directives or recommendations on 
implementation. Regionalization strategies led by other countries, as well as review and update of 
information generated by each Member regarding implementation of Article 6.  
1.72.   For plants : Reference to document G/SPS/48 , Guidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the Applica tion of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures.  
Have you used the Committee's Guidelines on Regionalization (G/SPS/48 ) in your efforts 
to seek recognition by another Member of your domestic control and enforcement systems 
for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free status? Are there areas of the 
Guidelines that could be imp roved?  
1.73.   For animals : They have been used both for obtaining recognition and for conferring it.  
1.74.   Response time of veterinary services to produce the file conferring recognition or formulating 
comments on the same must be agreed, as well as the response time o f the authorities entrusted 
with handling a request in order to evaluate the documents submitted.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 12 - 
 
  How do you use IPPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another Member  or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where additional clarification in the international standards 
or guidelines would be beneficial?  
1.75.   For animals : It is used as part and parcel o f the technical evaluation procedure for the 
recognition of animal disease -free and pest -free areas.  
1.76.   Implementation has been in conformity with the general principles established by the OIE. 
More technical and scientific information (including sources) on implementation is needed to make 
proper use of regionalization.  
1.77.   For plants : In practice , few countries request recognition of pes t-free areas but when they 
do, the criteria used to analyze  the information and grant recognition where necessary a re 
established in ISPM 4, ISPM 26 and ISPM 29.  
1.78.   It is worth mentioning that the fact of recognizing a pest for the recognition of a pest -free 
area does not necessarily imply establishing phytosanitary measures for imports since in addition, a 
pest risk anal ysis must be carried out.  
1.9  Chinese Taipei  
What are your domestic procedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status? What challenges have you encountered in implementing such procedures?  
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu , Kinmen and Matsu set up procedures to establish 
and maintain disease or pest -free area s in accordance with "Statute for Prevention and Control of 
Infectious Animal Disease " and "Plant Protection and Quarantine Act ". Relevant implementing 
regulations are established to prevent and control the occurrence, transmission or spread of animal 
and plant diseases and pests.  
1. To control domestic diseases and pests:  
1) When establishing each implementing regulation, the competent authority invites 
stakeholders from relevant authorities, industries, academia and research institutes to 
take part in discussions , as well as collecting views from industrial groups, farmers, 
private companies and official inspectors to seek and achieve consent . 
2) To draft measures to monitor and control animal and plant diseases and pests based on 
OIE and IPPC standards , and to establish implementing regulation in order to enforce 
laws with penalties to violators.  
3) To continue collecting views from stakeholders and to adjust or amend pertinent 
measures in order to establish or maintain disease or pest -free status.  
2. Quarantine for importing animals, plants and their products:  
1) To prevent the introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests, the competent 
authorit y has established procedures of inspection and quarantine requirements for 
importing animals, plants and their products, as well as the designated fields to conduct 
animal and plant quarantine.  
2) To consult with exporting country to proceed with desk review for risk assessment and 
to conduct on -site audit in order to recognize the animal and plant disease or pest -free 
status of exporting country and to make sure its SPS measures achieve our level of 
protection.  
3. Challenges in implementing the above -mentioned p rocedures : 
1) As for the prevention and control of animal and plant diseases, because lands for farming 
and husbandry are limited , and the lands are utilized extensively, these situations 
increase the difficulty of disease prevention and control.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 13 - 
 
  2) As for impor t quarantine, because the major part of agri -food consumption is imported 
from other countries, we need to prevent exotic diseases or pests  being  introduc ed into 
our territory along with trade. Therefore, we have to strengthen import inspection and 
review capacity in order to maintain our disease or pest -free status.  
What kind of Committee activities and documents are most useful to you in your domestic 
consultations on implementation of Article 6?  
1.79.   It is helpful that Members share their experiences in estab lishing and maintaining disease -free 
areas in the thematic meeting s or workshop s held by the SPS Committee. Besides, the Committee 
should encourage Members and regional organization s to apply for holding regional workshops in 
order to resolve the problem about disease transmission and disease -free area establishment in the 
region.  
Have you used the Committee's Guidelines on Regionalization (G/SPS/48 ) in your efforts 
to seek recognition by another Member of your domestic control and enforcement systems 
for esta blishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free status? Are there areas of the 
Guidelines that could be improved?  
1.80.   The Decision of guidelines to further the practical implementation of Article 6 approved by 
SPS Committee is valuable as a reference. The Separ ate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu has set up relevant review and recognition procedures based on relevant 
international standards, guidance and recommendations, and the recommendations of the Decision.  
How do you use IPPC/OIE offici al pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another Member or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where additio nal clarification in the international standards 
or guidelines would be beneficial?  
1.81.   We establish the recognition of disease and pest -free area review procedure based on the OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code and IPPC standards, mainly with ISPM 4 and ISPM 26. The exporting 
country must submit relevant technical information for us to review the case.  
1.82.   Besides, as for the phytosanitary recognition of pest -free area s, we recommend that IPPC 
should establish more detailed guidelines in this field for WTO Member s’ reference.  
1.10  Turkey  
What are your domestic procedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status? What challenges have you encountered in implementing such procedures?  
1.83.   Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has published "Directive Related with the Definition and 
Declaration of Zones Free from Notifiable Avian Influenza Disease" and "Free of Avian Influenza 
Disease Zones" in order to protect animal and public health, provi de safe animal origin production 
and sustain international trade.  
1.84.   This Directive includes the definition of the zones that will be defined as zones free of avian 
influenza, in addition to the procedures for active and passive surveys for preserving the dis ease-
free status, animal movements between the regions and the procedures to be followed in the zones 
where the disease -free situation is suspended in detail.  
1.85.   In Turkey, pest and disease -free zones are established in line with ISPM 4 (Requirements for 
the Establishment of Pest Free Areas), ISPM 6 (Surveillance Guide) and ISPM 26 (Establishment of 
Pest Free Areas for Fruit Flies ( Tephritidae )). In the implementation of Tephritidae  procedures, 
difficulties such as limited budget and human resources have been encountered.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 14 - 
 
  How do you use IPPC/OIE official pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another Member or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where additional clarification in the international standards 
or guidelines would be beneficial?  
1.86.   As an importing country, in addition to the regionalization criteria defined by the OIE for the 
recognition of disease -free regio ns in the exporting countries, there are some other criteria that are 
evaluated. For instance, whether the disease reports of the concerned country are regular or not; if 
the requirements defined in the OIE Code for disease -freedom have been fulfilled or t he procedures 
of self -declaration and regionalization specific to the relevant disease have been completed.  
1.11  Ukraine  
What are your domestic procedures for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free 
status? What challenges have you encountered in implementing such procedures?  
Phytosanitary information  
1.87.   The main international documents describing the procedures for the establishment of 
pest-free areas, production places and sites by which  Ukraine  is guided are:  
▪ WTO SPS Agreement;  
▪ ISPM No. 4 Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas;  
▪ ISPM No. 10 Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest 
free production sites.  
1.88.   Phytosanitary requirements of norms for objects of regulation (which will be expo rted to 
partner countries) concerning areas, production places and (or) sites free from definite pest - exports 
of such objects will be made exclusively from production places or production sites established in 
accordance with Article 31 of the Law of Ukra ine "On Plant Quarantine" and the Procedure for the 
official establishment and/or maintenance of the status of a place of production or production site 
free of regulated pests, deprivation of such status, its renewal, and other conditions for the official 
establishment of the place of production or production site, approved by the order of the Ministry of 
Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine dated 7 August 2012 No. 487 . 
Problems  
▪ Low awareness of agricultural producers about the procedures for the establishme nt of 
pest- free areas, production places and sites ; 
▪ Setting the boundaries of buffer areas.  
Veterinary information  
1.89.   The Law of Ukraine "On Veterinary Medicine" define s in Article 22 , development, introduction 
and approval of veterinary and sanitary measures. All veterinary and sanitary measures are based 
on international standards, guidelines and recommendations of relevant international organizations.  
1.90.   In order to control animal diseases, the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer 
Prote ction (SSUFSCP) and scientific institutions under the control of the SSUFSCP annually develop 
the Plan of anti -epizootic measures for the prevention main infectious parasitic animal diseases in 
Ukraine ; the State plan of monitoring of infectious diseases o n the territory of Ukraine is approved , 
and Procedure for carrying out monitoring researches on infectious diseases.  
What kind of Committee activities and documents are most useful to you in your domestic 
consultations on implementation of Article 6?  
1.91.   Article 6 of the  WTO SPS Agreement is used for the national (intra -state) harmonization of 
normative legal acts, for vertical as well as horizontal legislation. For example,  the Order "On 
approving requirements for importing (sending) into the customs territory  of Ukraine of live animals, G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 15 - 
 
  their reproductive material, food products of animal origin, feed, hay, straw, as well as by -products 
of animal origin and products of their processing" from 16  November 2018 #553, 
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0346 -19. 
Have you used the Committee's Guidelines on Regionalization (G/SPS/48 ) in your efforts 
to seek recognition by another Member of your domestic control and enforcement systems 
for establishing and maintaining pest - or disease -free status?  Are there areas of the 
Guidelines that could be improved?  
Phytosanitary information  
1.92.   Not used. However, the Competent Authority in Ukraine (SSUFSCP) is guided by ISPM No. 4 
Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas and ISPM No. 10 Requirements for the 
establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites.  
Veterinary information  
1.93.   Not used. However, in drafting regulations that are considered regionalization standards 
Health Code OIE Terrestrial Animal chapters 4.3 and 4.4 of the establishment in Ukraine 
compartmentalization mechanism.  
How do you use IPPC/OIE o fficial pest - or disease -free country or zone status in 
implementing Article 6? In your efforts to seek recognition by another Member or 
Member(s), have you found that OIE or IPPC standards are interpreted and applied 
consistently? Are there areas where ad ditional clarification in the international standards 
or guidelines would be beneficial?  
1.94.   Ukraine based its SPS measures on the standards, directives and recommendations of the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) an d the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in accordance with the requirements of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  
1.95.   Some countries do not always take into account IPPC / OIE status  of pest and animal disease  
freedom  for a country or an area. The y need to comply with the laws of the exporting country.  
Phytosanitary information  
1.96.   Letters to the Members are sent with the request to recognize the territory of Ukraine as a 
free area from the quarantine organisms included in the list A1 of the List of re gulated pests 
(quarantine organisms) approved by the Order of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine, 
29 November 2006 No. 716 "On Approval the List of Regulated Pests".  
1.97.   In order to implement the phytosanitary requirements, it is proposed that agricult ural 
producers and exporters establish sites and places of production free of pests, if such an action is 
required by the country of import.  
1.98.   Application form and procedure approved by order of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food 
of Ukraine, 8  Septembe r 2012 № 487, the fee for the inspection of agricultural crops to detect 
quarantine organisms to provide and/or confirm the status of the place of production or production 
sites at the request of the person who produces the regulated objects by the Law of Ukraine "On 
Plant Quarantine" approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 
28 December  2011 No. 1348. In order to establish the status of the place of production or production 
site free from pest, the business operator is provided to the territorial authority of the SSUFSCP.  
Veterinary information  
1.99.   Letters to the Members (Competent Authorities) are sent to the information on outbreaks of 
infectious animal diseases for their elimination and notification through international organization s 
(OIE, WTO) and bilaterally.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Other comments  
1.100.   Ukraine submits the following question to the OIE : 
▪ Whether OIE takes (will take) into account the epizootic situation, which has an impact on 
the economic component and is aimed at trade facilitation while developing regionalization 
and disease status standards?  
2  QUESTIONS FOR MEMBER S AND IPPC AND OIE R EPRESENTATIVES  
2.1  Argentina  
Are there ways for the SPS Committee to collaborate more effectively with IPPC and OIE 
to strengthen implementation of international standards on regionalization and Article 6?  
2.1  Section V of the guidelines contained in document G/SPS/48  concerns monitoring, and 
encourages Member to inform the Committee when:  
a) a request for recognition of pest - or disease -free area or area of low pest or disease 
prevalence is made; and/or  
b) a determination on whether to recognize pest - or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence is made.  
2.2  In order to obtain the recognition of pest -free areas by different countries, it would be very 
useful if the Committee encouraged countries to actively par ticipate in monitoring activities to 
improve the implementation of Article 6 on regionalization.  
2.3  It is important to note that the recognition of a disease -free country or area is only the beginning 
of the process of opening up a market, which determines th e eligibility of its status for exportation. 
Recognition is generally followed by several (or all) the following steps:  
1. Completion of a risk assessment, depending on the goods to be exported, in order to 
establish  "sanitary import requirements".  
2. Negotiatio n and agreement on the veterinary certificate to be issued.  
3. Completion of the process for the accreditation of exporting establishments (such as 
livestock, production, processing and storage establishments). This step may involve a 
second inspection visit,  which may be conducted via pre -listing or on an individual basis by 
establishment.  
2.4  To eliminate delays in the process to adopt the OIE's official recognition of pest - and disease -
free status, the following opportunities for improvement have been identifie d: 
1. Identify, through the Observatory on the implementation of OIE Standards, of the 
constraints involved  in the official OIE recognition process, as well as those faced by 
importing countries or blocs when adopting such recognition. This would allow for changes 
to be made to the process at the level of the OIE, and for cooperation and training 
instruments to  be developed for importing countries and blocs.  
2. Seek to ensure that, as a result of the above action, importing countries/blocs are able to 
automatically adopt official recognition by the OIE without delay.  
3. Ensure that requests for information (questionna ires) are restricted to diseases for which 
there is no official recognition by the OIE, are standardized as far as possible, and take into 
account the validity of available material such as past audit reports and Performance of 
Veterinary Services (PVS) re ports.  
4. Create and establish enforcement and surveillance bodies at the WTO (step prior to dispute 
settlement and penalties).  
2.5  Argentina considers that its strategy to address this issue could also be applied in the context 
of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation (Chapter on SPS), which concerns trade operators more 
directly . G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 17 - 
 
  How have Members without elaborate SPS programmes relied on OIE or IPPC work to 
facilitate safe importation of needed food products?  
2.6  Not applicable.  
2.2  Brazil  
Are there ways for the SPS Committee to collaborate more effectively with IPPC and OIE 
to strengthen implementation of international standards on regionalization and Article 6?  
2.7.  The SPS Committee should seek greater commitment from Member s towards recognition of 
health status es established by the OIE or in accordance with the standards of IPPC without undue 
delay or, in case of non -recognition of the health status of a country or zone, justify ing to the 
exporting party the scientific reasons for non -recognition.  
How have Membe rs without elaborate SPS programmes relied on OIE or IPPC work to 
facilitate safe importation of needed food products?  
2.8.   In the case of animal health, the OIE standards are built on a broad process with free 
participation of the member countries and are usu ally based on a sound scientific basis and can 
therefore be considered reliable for the safe trade of food.  
2.3  European Union  
Are there ways for the SPS Committee to collaborate more effectively with IPPC and OIE 
to strengthen implementation of international standards on regionalization and Article 6?  
2.9.  In 2018, the World Assembly of OIE  Delegates adopted a resolution recommending the 
establishment of an Observatory on the implementation of OIE Standards by its member countries. 
Monitoring, identifying and analy zing difficulties faced by its member countries enables the OIE to 
ensure a more effective implementation of its standards, including regionalization . The European 
Union strongly supports this initiative and hopes that  it will facilitate the good understanding and 
application of the regionalization  principles worldwide.  
2.10.   The E uropean Union also see s the benefits of similar initiatives to be carried out by IPPC. 
The European Union welcomes the activities of the IPPC regardin g the development of a guide on 
pest-free areas.  
2.11.   In the opinion of the E uropean Union, it is very important that OIE and IPPC continue to share 
regularly the state of play of their work on regionalization  with the SPS Committee.  
2.4  Hong Kong, China  
Are there ways for the SPS Committee to collaborate more effectively with IPPC and OIE 
to strengthen implementation of international standards on regionalization and Article 6?  
2.12.   No comment.  
How have Members without elaborate SPS programmes relied on OIE or IPPC work to 
facilitate safe importation of needed food products?  
2.13.   The Centre for Food Safety (CFS) is the food safety authority under the Food and 
Environmental Hygiene Department.  It makes reference  to the OIE recommendations for importation 
of meat for consumption when negotiating import protocols with a potential exporting country.  CFS 
also adopts the concept of zoning and compartmentalization as recommended by the OIE to ensure 
the safety of impor ted food.  G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2  
 
- 18 - 
 
  2.5  Japan  
Are there ways for the SPS Committee to collaborate more effectively with IPPC and OIE 
to strengthen implementation of international standards on regionalization and Article 6?  
2.14.   It would be beneficial for all the Members to share the examples of questions of importing 
Members which the exporting Members could not answer or the data the exporting Members did not 
have, in the aim of identifying the type of capacity building needed b y Members, especially 
developing countries, for implementing pest or disease -free areas. 
How have Members without elaborate SPS programmes relied on OIE or IPPC work to 
facilitate safe importation of needed food products?  
2.15.   Not applicable . 
2.6  Mexico  
Are there w ays for the SPS Committee to collaborate more effectively with IPPC and OIE 
to strengthen implementation of international standards on regionalization and Article 6?  
2.16.   For animals : Yes, by encouraging the participation of persons with direct responsibility ( in 
each country) for the understanding and implementation of regionalization in ISPM and OIE 
meetings. This would enable them to draft technical documents that contain real case studies and 
tried and tested alternative solutions, thus facilitating the unde rstanding of each Member and 
building their capacity to identify, resolve and document problems and share success stories, which 
can then be incorporated into international standards.  
2.17.   For plants : Through IPPC meetings to which they are invited to  participa te. At these forums 
they can express the concerns of the Committee and of WTO Members.  
How have Members without elaborate SPS programmes relied on OIE or IPPC work to 
facilitate safe importation of needed food products?  
2.18.   For animals : The OIE's analysis is based on available scientific evidence.  
2.19.   For plants : In the case of Mexico, when phytosanitary requirements are negotiated for the 
export of produce to countries that do not have an SPS system or programme, the ISPM is the most 
important referen ce for facilitating formalities. This is where the importance of the IPPC's standard 
setting work and its capacity to remain updated come into play.  
2.7  Chinese Taipei  
Are there ways for the SPS Committee to collaborate more effectively with IPPC and OIE 
to strengthen implementation of international standards on regionalization and Article 6?  
2.20.   No comment.  
How have Members without elaborate SPS programmes relied on OIE or IPPC work to 
facilitate safe importation of needed food products?  
2.21.   No comment.  
 
__________