G/SPS/W/313  
 
27 May 2019  
(19-3674) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
REVIEW OF T HE OPERATION AND IMP LEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMIT TEE 
Note by the Secretariat1 
INTRODUCTION  
Article 12.7 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("the 
Agreement") provides that "the Committee shall review the operation and implementation of this 
Agreement three years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement, and thereafter as 
the need arises". A Fi rst Review of the Agreement was completed in March 1999.2 
At the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Ministers instructed the Committee to review 
the operation and implementation of the Agreement at least once every four years.3 The Second 
Review  of the Agreement was completed in July 2005,4 the Third Review in May 2010,5 and t he 
Fourth  Review in July 2017 .6 At its March 2018 meeting, the Committee adopted a procedure and 
timetable to undertake the Fifth Review of the Agreement.7 
In accordance wit h the procedures adopted by the Committee , this draft report of the Fifth Review 
is for discussion at the 18 -19 July 2019 meeting of the Committee . Members are invited to submit 
written comments on this draft to the Secretariat by 17 June 2019 . 
The draft report of the Fifth Review is comprised of three sections: (i) Part A : Proposals submitted 
under the Fifth Review – which  contains the list of the proposals submitted under the Fifth Review, 
as well as information on the discussion s and thematic sessions t hat have taken place on the various 
topics. In addition, this section contains information on the areas identified for further work by the 
SPS Committee, including any recommendations  (to be added at a later stage) ; (ii) Part B : Periodic 
review of Decision s, Guidelines and Recommendations of the SPS Committee – which  outlines  the 
existing decisions , guidelines and recommendations which are to be examined  as part of the periodic 
review of the Agreement ; and  (iii) Part C : Factual report – which  will be based on the draft 
background document, which was initially circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1612 on 4 May 2018 .8 
 
                                                
1 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.  
2 G/SPS/12.  
3 WT/MIN(01)/17 . 
4 G/SPS/36.  
5 G/SPS/53.  
6 G/SPS/62.  In accordance with the procedures for the Fourth Review, the Committee considered the 
revised report of the Review for adoption  for the first time  at its October 2014 meeting. After submission of 
Members' comments and suggestions, as well as further discussio ns in several Committee meetings, the report 
was subsequently adopted in July 2017 . The report of the Fourth Review largely reflects the work of the 
Committee until October 2014, except where stated otherwise . 
7 G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1.  
8 Part C will be updated at a later stage and will be contained in an addendum to the Report of the 
Review.  G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents  
Page 
PART A – PROPOSALS S UBMITTED UNDER THE F IFTH REVIEW  ................................ ........  3 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 
2   APPROPRIATE LEVE L OF PROTECTION, RIS K ASSESSMENT AND SCI ENCE  ..................  3 
3   CONTROL, INSPECT ION AND APPROVAL PRO CEDURES (ANNEX C)  .............................  4 
 EQUIVALENCE  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  4 
5   FALL ARMYWORM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  6 
6   NATIONAL SPS COO RDINATION MECHANISMS  ................................ ...........................  7 
7   NOTIFICATION PRO CEDURES AND TRANSPAR ENCY  ................................ ....................  7 
8   PESTICIDE MRLS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  8 
9   REGIONALIZATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 
10   ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDR ESSING SPECIFIC TRAD E CONCERNS  .........  9 
11   THIRD PARTY ASS URANCE SCHEMES AND D EVELOPMENT OF GUIDEL INES FOR 
IMPLEMENTATIO N OF ARTICLE 13  ................................ ................................ .................  10 
PART B – PERIODIC RE VIEW OF COMMITTEE DE CISIONS, GUIDELINES AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 11 
12   INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 11 
13   PROCEDURE TO MO NITOR THE PROCESS OF  INTERNATIONAL HARMO NIZATION 
(G/SPS/11/REV.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  11 
14   CONSISTENCY - GUIDELINES TO FURTHER  THE PRACTICAL IMPLE MENTATION OF 
ARTICLE 5.5 (G/SPS/1 5) ................................ ................................ ...............................  11 
15   PROCEDURE TO ENHANC E TRANSPARENCY OF SP ECIAL AND DIFFERENTI AL 
TREATMENT IN FAVOUR OF DEVELOPING COUNTR Y MEMBERS (G/SPS/33/ REV.1)  ....... 12 
16   RECOMMENDED PROCEDU RE TO ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE THE RESOL UTION OF 
SPECIFIC SPS ISSUES AMONG MEMBERS IN ACC ORDANCE WITH ARTICLE  12.2 
(G/SPS/61 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  12 
ANNEX I: LIST OF TOP ICS AND PROPOSALS  ................................ ................................ .. 13 
PART C - FACTUAL REP ORT (an updated version of the Backgroun d Document of the Fifth 
Review, G/SPS/GEN/1612, to be included as an addendum to a future revision of this Report)G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 3 - 
 
  PART A  – PROPOSALS SUBMITT ED UNDER THE FIFTH R EVIEW  
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  In the Fifth Review, the Committee has considered proposals and suggestions submitted by 
Members  on the following topics : 
▪ Appropriate level of protection, risk assessment and science;  
▪ Control, inspection and approval procedures  (Annex C) ; 
▪ Equivalence;  
▪ Fall armyworm ; 
▪ National SPS coordination mechanisms ; 
▪ Notification procedures and  transparency;  
▪ Pesticide MRLs ;  
▪ Regionalization ; 
▪ Role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in addressing STCs;  and 
▪ Third party assurance schemes and development of guidelines for implementation of 
Article  13. 
1.2.  Part A of this document contains information on the discussions that have taken place in the 
SPS Committee and thematic sessions on the various topics identified above.9 Annex I  provides a 
list of the topics and proposals submitted under the Fifth Review.10 
2  APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF  PROTECTION, RISK AS SESSMENT AN D SCIENCE  
2.1.  Brazil indicated  interest in discussing the appropriate level of protection  (ALOP) , risk 
assessment , and the scientific basis of SPS measures required by the SPS Agreement  in its 
preliminary submission .11 While recognizing  that the SPS Agreement provide s a solid base for the 
treatment of regulatory issues in the area of trade in agricultural products, Brazil was of the view  
that it was necessary to reinforce its features to ensure the attainment of its objectives.  
2.2.  In relati on to scientific justification (Article 2.2) and risk assessment, Brazil  indicated that the 
Committee should reaffirm the scientific basis of SPS measures required by the SPS Agreement, 
thereby limiting the use of SPS measures in a manner that would consti tute arbitrary or unjustifiable 
discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade. With respect to risk assessment and determination 
of the appropriate level of SPS protection (Article 5), Brazil  indicated that Members could discuss 
guidelines to ensure t hat the factors to be taken into account in risk assessment, as provided for in 
Articles 5.2 and 5.3, were appraised in ways supported by scientific evidence and methods. Members 
could also discuss ways to avoid the misuse of Article 5.7.  
2.3.  Some Members indicated interest in a further elaboration of Brazil's proposal , while also 
flagging concerns . The United States expressed interest in the topic of risk assessment, including 
risk communication, noting that the Background Document for the Fifth Review12 contai ned valuable 
information on relevant Committee discussions.  
2.4.  Subsequently  Brazil introduced a more detailed  proposal13 on risk assessment and appropriate 
level of protection.  Brazil suggested that Members be urged to recognize that risk assessment, as 
regula ted under Article 5.1, was the main criteria and means by which scientific justification was 
attained for the adoption and implementation of SPS measures. It also suggested that Members 
                                                
9 The Chairperson's report of the informal meetings on the Fifth Review is contained in 
JOB/SPS/2/Rev.2.  
10 A summary of all submitted proposals and papers is available in G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.2. In addition, 
comments that have been submitted on these proposals and papers are available in G/SPS/GEN/1655 and 
G/SPS/GEN/1661.  
11 G/SPS/W/301 . 
12 G/SPS/GEN/1612.  
13 G/SPS/W/308 , which replaced the relevant sections in  G/SPS/W/301 . G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 4 - 
 
  specify in relevant notifications that the notified measures were take n under Article 5.7, stating their 
views on the insufficiency of scientific evidence in relation to the issue that gave origin to the 
measure, and that the notifying Member had sought and would continuously seek additional 
information in order to review th e measure within a reasonable period of time. The Committee should 
also ask Codex Alimentarius, as well as other relevant international organizations, to work on the 
procedural steps necessary for the adoption and application of provisional measures, given  the 
impossibility of establishing a proper risk assessment. Brazil recognized that this was a sensitive 
issue and indicated openness to dialogue.  
2.5.  In Committee discussions,  Brazil referred to the practical differences in the definition of risk 
assessment i n the SPS Agreement, and that of the  International Standard -Setting Bodies  (ISSBs ), 
as well as in the principle of provisional measures embodied in Article 5.7.  
2.6.  One Member emphasized the importance of Article 5.1 in implementing the scientific 
justification principle of the SPS Agreement, and further indicated that it did not  agree with the 
suggestions regarding notifications contained in paragraph 2.1(b)  of Brazil's proposa l, which in its 
view went beyond the obligations of the Agreement and created an additional burden . 
2.7.  Other  Members noted  the importance of the scientific justification principle and the challenging 
nature of discussing this topic, while indicating their wil lingness to have further discussions on certain 
elements of the proposal.  
3  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDU RES (ANNEX C)  
3.1.  The SPS Committee held a Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures 
(Annex  C) in July 2018.14 The main objective of the workshop was to bring together officials 
responsible for the implementation of the SPS Agreement, as well as the relevant international 
standard -setting bodies and other international organizations, for discussion and experience -sharing 
on developments , challenges and practices in implementing Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Through presentations, practical case stories and discussions, the workshop aimed 
to expand Members' understanding of the relevant WTO Agreements and provisions; highlig ht the 
economic rationale for strengthening the implementation of Annex C to reduce trade transaction 
costs; and explain how the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement  (TFA)  linked to and complemented 
the SPS Agreement.  
3.2.  The United States expressed interest in continuing to work on this topic.  Canada  proposed to  
hold a thematic session on approval procedures in November 2019 , to provide Members with an 
opportunity to discuss issues concerning the implementation of Article 8 and Annex C .15 Canada 
proposed that such a thematic session could also address areas such as undue delays and 
transparency procedures.  
3.3.  Members welcomed Canada's proposal , and several noted challenges faced in trade of 
agricultural products due to approval procedures which did not follow the princ iples of the 
SPS Agreement. The Committee agreed to hold a thematic session on approval procedures in 
November 2019. Members were asked to submit inputs on the programme and speakers, following 
which the Secretariat would prepare a first draft of the progr amme for circulation and discussion in 
the July 2019 Committee meeting.  
EQUIVALENCE  
4.1.  Australia  proposed that the Committee  expand on its existing guidance on recognition of 
equivalence in relation to systems approaches for achieving the importing Members' a ppropriate 
level of protection .16 In particular, the proposal suggest ed that the Committee explore the 
impediments to the application of the concept and practices of equivalence to manage SPS risks in 
trade. The Committee could  build on its Decision on the Implementation of Article  4 of the Agreement 
                                                
14 A summary report of this workshop is available in document  G/SPS/R/91.  The programme is also 
available in document  G/SPS/GEN/1613/Rev.2. Presentations from the session are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop910718_e.htm . 
15 G/SPS/W/310 . 
16 G/SPS/W/299.  G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 5 - 
 
  on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures17, specifically in relation to the 
determination of equivalence of a systems approach , and draw on existing and ongoing work of the 
ISSBs.  
4.2.  Brazil propose d that Members recognize the importance of the Committee Decision on 
Equivalence, commit to follow its provisions , and reinforce their commitment to enter into 
consultations when requested, following Article 4.2 and the procedures described in the Decision 
itself.18 Canada proposed  holding a workshop or a thematic session on equivalence ,19 and suggested  
including  topics such as systems approaches.20 Several Members supported Canada's proposal to 
hold a thematic session or workshop on equivalence and further sug gested that such an event could 
also address the topics raised by Australia and Brazil, as well as help to identify priorities and needs.  
Many Members were in favour  of sharing best practices and experiences in implementing Article 4 
before developing additional guidance.  
4.3.  The Committee decided  to hold a two -part thematic session on equivalence , including  a first 
part to introduce the concept of equivalence and the international guidance available from the WTO 
and ISSBs; and a second part to share the experi ences of Members with the recognition of 
equivalence.  
4.4.  The first part of the thematic session  on equivalence  was held  in October 2018 ,21 where the 
Secretariat provided an overview of the provisions of the SPS Agreement on equivalence (Article 4) 
and the relevant guidelines, as well as relevant jurisprudence. The thematic session also included a 
presentation from the Secretariat on equivale nce from a TBT perspective. The ensuing discussions 
covered SPS topics related to the time -frame for expedited responses, the use of Committee 
guidelines in disputes, responding to equivalence requests, criteria for determining the appropriate 
level of pro tection, and the lack of equivalence notifications, among others. In addition, the 
discussions focused on the differences in the coverage of equivalence in the SPS and TBT 
Agreements, and the lessons to be learned from discussions in the SPS and TBT Commit tees. 
4.5.  Representatives of Codex, IPPC and OIE explained how the concept of equivalence was applied 
in their respective areas and  identified the relevant international standards and guidelines. 
In addition, the OIE provided information on the level of implem entation of equivalence and 
equivalence arrangements by its members, including the challenges faced in making an equivalence 
determination, as reported in a recent survey.  The discussions covered the need to ensure the 
consistency of the work being underta ken by the ISSBs  with the WTO Agreements; the challenges 
of having a common definition of equivalence; the lack of consistency in wording across 
organizations; the situations in which a systems approach should be used; and the link between 
recognition of d isease -free areas and equivalence determinations. The Secretariat provided 
background information on the genesis of the equivalence Decision  and underscored the 
collaboration between the SPS Committee and the ISSBs  at the time.  
4.6.  Building on Part 1 of Themat ic Session on Equivalence , the proponents noted several areas for 
further discussion . These included the notification  of equivalence  and use of the formal equivalence 
agenda item ; exploring certain  concepts in more detail ; improving the predictability of e quivalence ; 
and discussing the Committee Decision . One Member observed that the first part of the thematic 
session had served to untangle some of the issues identified in its  written  comments .22 
4.7.  The second part of the Thematic Session was held  in March 2019.23 Members shared their 
experience in applying equivalence at different levels, to individual measures, groups of measures, 
or entire control systems for particular commodities.  In addition, other approaches to equivalence 
                                                
17 G/SPS/19/Rev.2.  
18 G/SPS/W/301.  
19 G/SPS/W/302.  
20 G/SPS/W/302/Rev.1.  
21 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/ 1640/Rev.1 . Presentations from the session are 
available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop301018_e.htm . 
22 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
23 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/ 1675/Rev.1 . Presentations from the session are 
available at: https://ww w.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop18032019_e.htm . G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 6 - 
 
  were presented from  an academic and regional perspective. In the discussions, Members agreed 
that equivalence was an important trade -facilitating tool.  
4.8.  Some speakers highlighted that the principle of equivalence implie d reaching a similar or 
comparable end -result, without requiring sameness of methods or procedures. In this context, the 
role of the 'appropriate level of protection' was highlighted several times as the relevant benchmark 
or comparator against which the he alth outcome of alternative processes or methods should be 
assessed.  The proponents indicated their  intention  to reflect on the discussions at the thematic 
sessions  and consider possible next steps.  
5  FALL ARMYWORM  
5.1.  Brazil , Kenya , Paraguay , the United States  and Uruguay proposed using  fall armyworm as a 
case study to discuss the application of the principles in the SPS Agreement to enable greater access 
to tools and technologies.24 The proposal recommend ed forming a working group to undertake 
several activities.  
5.2.  Several Members  supported the proposal , including  the formation of a working group to share 
experiences and help to identify precautionary actions.  One Member indicated that it was still 
studying th e proposal and that it reserved its position. Another Member raised q uestions about the 
link to intellectual property issues made in the proposal, and the link to the TRIP S Agreement , also 
noting that  biotechnology was a sensitive subject, and that the dev elopment of prescriptive 
guidelines in this area could interfere with Members' policy space.  
5.3.  The Committee decided  to hold a thematic session on fall armyworm in March 2019 , and  
Paraguay circulate d a proposed agenda for this  session.25 The Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm  
was held  on 19 March 201926, to discuss the role of the WTO SPS Agreement in enabling access to 
tools and technologies and facilitating international trade, using fall armyworm as a case study. The 
session provide d information on the nature  and the impact of the spread of fall armyworm across 
the globe, the challenges for smallholders, and the tools and technologies available. Global, regional 
and domestic approaches to enable regulatory frameworks to facilitate access to safe and effective 
tools and technologies were presented. Members shared their experiences in dealing with fall 
armyworm, highlighting their successes and challenges.27 
5.4.  Paraguay and Uruguay subsequently noted that research had allowed the  development of 
technology kits, which  could be effective in other regions such as Africa. They suggested that the 
Committee should f ocus on how to move forward to assist countries in need of these technology 
kits, and how the Committee could effectively support this approach, in light of the principles of the 
SPS Agreement  in formulating and implementing SPS measures . The also underscored  the 
importance of collaborating on regulatory approaches.  
5.5.  The first open -ended working group meeting on fall armyworm was held  in March 2019, where 
Members w ere invited to share their views on potential next steps.  Members reflected on the 
experiences shared in the thematic session. The co -sponsors indicated their intention to have an 
open and collaborative process in exchanging ideas so that  the Fifth Review Report would  fully reflect 
the views of the Committee . 
5.6.  Issues discussed at this meeting included t he development and implementation of guidelines  
in order to respond to the needs of farmers impact ed by the pest ; the role of the ISSBs in developing 
a collab orative action plan, and the possible opportunity to contribute to  IPPC's International Year 
of Plant Health 2020; the role of the SPS Committee; and facilitation of  technology transfer among 
Members.  One of the proponents clarified that the suggested role  of the working group was to 
compile rather than develop guidelines, and to reflect the experiences of Members that could be 
beneficial to others in their national and regional work in facilitating access to tools.  
                                                
24 G/SPS/W/305 . 
25 G/SPS/W/309 and G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1.  
26 The programme for this thematic session is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1676/Rev.1. Presentations from 
the session are also available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop19032019_e.htm.  
27 See the summary report of the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting for an overview of the thematic 
session ( G/SPS/R/94, forthcoming ). G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 7 - 
 
  6  NATIONAL SPS COORDIN ATION MECHANISMS  
6.1.  Burundi, Ghana , Kenya , Madagascar , Nigeria  and the  United States  presented  a joint  proposal 
on strengthening national SPS committee s, suggesting the organization of a thematic session or 
workshop in late 2018 or early 2019.28 Several Members supported the proposal, highlighting the 
importance of sharing experiences with national SPS committees. Some Members  emphasized that 
national committees were not the only way to coordin ate and suggested enlarging the scope to 
include other national coordination mechani sms in the event . While the Trade Facilitation Agreement 
contained an obligation to establish a national committee, the SPS Agreement did not.  What 
mattered was the existence of  a functioning national coordination mechanism.  The Secretariat 
reminded Member s that the SPS Committee had held a Workshop on Coordination at National and 
Regional Levels in 2011, and invited Members to consult the materials available on the WTO 
website.29 
6.2.  The Committee agreed with the Chairperson's suggestion to address national SPS  coordination 
mechanisms in a Workshop on Transparency and Coordination to be held in July 2019.  
The Secretariat prepared  draft programme ,30 inviting  Members to submit comments . 
7  NOTIFICATION PROCEDU RES AND TRANSPARENCY  
7.1.  Brazil proposed  that Members  exchange  views on the notification of measures not clearly fitting 
only within the scope of the SPS or TBT Agreements, in order to improve transparency and avoid 
delays in the evaluation of notifications, for example at a workshop or thematic session.31 Members 
supported  the proposal to hold a workshop or thematic session . Brazil clarified that the proposal was 
mainly to facilitate a broader discussion on notification s under the SPS or the TBT Agreement and 
did not expressly include the development of guidelines. One Member suggested that the Secretariat 
could provide information on notification statistics at such an event.  
7.2.  The Committee decided to hold  a Workshop on Transparency and Coordination in July 2019. 
Brazil noted that both the SPS and TBT Committees would ad dress its proposal  as part of their 
transparency workshops scheduled for summer 2019. Brazil invited Members to collaboratively work 
in developing the agenda for these sessions.  
7.3.  The United States  shared  the concern  regarding notification practices  and welc omed the work 
under the Fifth Review to provide greater clarity on current practices and to promote a shared 
understanding among Members on the need to notify measures to the appropriate Committee 
consistent with the definitions contained in the SPS Agreem ent.32 
7.4.  The Secretariat circulated a  draft programme  for the workshop ,33 developed in coordination 
with Brazil and TBT colleagues. The draft programme took into account Brazil 's proposal s in the SPS 
and TBT Committee s.34 Members were requested to submit comments and suggest speakers , and 
Brazil submitted further suggestions.35 
7.5.  One Member reiterated the need to notify relevant measures under both the SPS and TBT 
Agreements and highlighted the importance of further discussions on these types of measures that  
fall within the scope of both Agreements. There was a suggestion to up grade the SPS and TBT 
information management systems (IMS), as well as ePing, to become an integrated platform to allow 
Members to submit notifications under both Agreements, as well as  to track these notifications in 
order to ensure the accuracy of research results. Brazil indicated interest in the idea of an automatic 
procedure for submitting notifications under both Agreements, noting that the feasibility of 
implementing this feature would have to be checked.  
                                                
28 G/SPS/W/297.  
29 Information on this workshop is available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/sps_17oct11_e.htm .  
30 G/SPS/GEN/1694 . 
31 G/SPS/W /300.  
32 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
33 G/SPS/GEN/1694 . 
34 JOB/TBT/283 . 
35 G/SPS/W/312.  G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 8 - 
 
  8  PESTICIDE MRLS  
8.1.  Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kenya, Peru , the United States and Uruguay presented a 
revised joint proposal on  addressing the trade effects of  pesticide MRLs .36 The proposal contained 
several recommendations to advance work in the Committee on trade -related MRLs , for inclusion in 
the R eport of the Fifth Review.  The recommendations aim to enable the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on 
Pesticide Residues ( JMPR) to better respond to increased demand and monitor progress on new 
Codex MRLs; strengthen notification practices of Members for greater transparency and predictability 
of MRLs;  invite reports to the SPS Committee on international and regional activities on MRLs; 
enhance collaboration on solutions for MRLs for minor us e and specialty crops; and note the role of 
the Committee in increasing coordination and harmonization.  
8.2.  Several Members expressed general support for the proposal, but some  noted concerns  in 
relation to the  additional transparency requirements for pesticid e MRLs , which would be 
burdensome. One Member stressed that the recommendations should be balanced and mutually 
beneficial. Another Members highlighted the  challenges related to minor use pesticides . 
8.3.  In the March 2019  SPS Committee meeting , one Member  acknowledged the importance of 
pesticide MRLs and raised a question on the first recommendation in the proposal in relation to the 
work of JMPR , observing that the Committee was not in a position to discuss the relationship between 
JMPR and Codex. One of the p roponents  emphasized that the identified recommendation was 
addressed to Members, and not the actions of the Committee. Members were being tasked to convey 
the importance of trade and JMPR 's critical role in establishing MRLs to their respective Codex 
colleagues, through their national coordination mechanisms. The proponent  further highlighted that 
there had been developments since the submission of the paper, in terms of improvements in the 
functioning of JMPR.  
9  REGIONALIZATION  
9.1.  In its  preliminary submission, Brazil  raised some concerns on regionalization and suggest ed 
the possibility of automatic recognition of an official OIE (and eventually IPPC) disease status.37 
The European Union proposed  Committee actions to build on the thematic s essions on 
regionalization,38 clarifying that a further examination of jurisprudence might not be required in light 
of the information already provided at these sessions. The United States suggest ed Committee  
activities to promote greater understanding of regionalization and to help Members overcome 
challenges in its implementation.39 
9.2.  Some Members supported the development of case studies and training materials , as outlined 
in the US proposal,  and further suggested experience -sharing through  written submissio ns and  
greater use of the agenda item on regionalization; discussions on the reasons behind the lack of 
implementation of the SPS Committee Guidelines on Regionalization40; inviting the IPPC and OIE to 
provide further information on their ongoing work;  and organizing  a thematic session on 
regionalization.  
9.3.  Some Members also expressed concerns with the concept of the automatic recognition of OIE 
disease status, as suggested in Brazil's proposal . In response, Brazil recognized that for many 
Members, automatic r ecognition of OIE disease status was difficult and clarified  that it did not 
preclude undertaking a risk assessment. The European Union clarified that reviewing the Guidelines 
on Regionalization could help identify obstacles to their practical implementati on, and a possible 
need for clarification.  
                                                
36 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4.  Previous revisions of this proposal were discussed prior to the launch of the 
Fifth Review.  
37 G/SPS/W/301.  
38 G/SPS/W/298.  
39 G/SPS/W/303.  
40 G/SPS/48.  G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 9 - 
 
  9.4.  Brazil subsequently presented a proposal  on regionalization ,41 which  expanded on and replaced 
the suggestions on regionalization contained  in its previous submission.42 
9.5.  Brazil, the European Union and the United States  indicated that they had held discussions on 
the common objectives of their proposals, with a view to identifying practical ideas to cooperate to 
resolve concerns in this area. These ideas included discussion of case studies to identify benefits and 
challenges, promoting transparency, reinvigorating the standing agenda item on regionalization, and 
seeking inputs from OIE and IPPC.  
9.6.  Members expressed  their general support for continued discussions, including with the OIE and 
IPPC, on how to address the concerns of Members. Canada  drew attention to its paper on experiences 
with regionalization.43 
9.7.  Brazil, the European Union and the United States subsequently presented a joint pap er 
containing  a number of questions for Members, and for IPPC and OIE.44 The proponents indicated 
that the paper included a synthesis of all ideas in the ir previou s individual proposals , highlighting  
that it sought to outline a way forward to discussions th at could lead to consensus recommendations 
within the Committee. The proponents invited Members,  as well as IPPC and OIE, to provide 
responses to  a set of questions outlined in the joint proposal, and to indicate whether other questions 
should be included.  These questions and responses would form the basis for a more in -depth 
discussion in July 2019. Members agreed to move forward on th is basis.  
10  ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDRESSIN G SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERN S  
10.1.   South Africa  proposed  inviting the three standard -setting bodies to intervene in the 
Committee when specific trade concerns ( STCs) in their area were discussed.45 Recalling a 2009 
Workshop on the Relationship between the SPS Committee and the " Three Sisters"  (i.e. Codex, IPPC 
and OIE) , South Africa noted that many STCs were related to international standards, and  that the 
"Three Sisters " could play a useful role in discussions of these concerns.  
10.2.   The United States  referred to its c omments on the proposal46 which invited Members to review 
the Committee's discussions in 2012 on the role of observers,47 and further request ed that the 
Secretariat provide some background information on the Committee's discussions.  In response, the 
Secretariat provided information on past discussions of the role o f observer organizations , 
highlighting a  2012 background document on the subject48 and its  annex which also  contained the 
recommendations from the 2009 Workshop.  
10.3.   Several Members agreed that ISSBs could play a useful role in helping resolve concerns and 
also strengthen the factual basis of STCs discussed in the Committee. They referenced the  useful 
information contained in the Catalogue of Instruments .49 They emphasized  that the role of ISSBs 
should be neutral. Members also expressed interest  in refining the p roposal through further 
discussion  in order to avoid a situation where ISSBs would need to study all STCs on the agenda, 
trying to identify relevant standards. One Member also questioned  the role that ISSBs could play in 
resolving trade concerns.  
10.4.   South Afr ica subsequently  introduced an addendum to its proposal,50 recalling that its original 
proposal built on the recommendations from the 2009 SPS Committee workshop. South Africa 
further proposed a more active role of the "Three Sisters " in addressing STCs, sp ecifically in relation 
                                                
41 G/SPS/W/307.  
42 G/SPS/W/301 . 
43 G/SPS/GEN/1650.  
44 G/SPS/W/311.  
45 G/SPS/W/304.  
46 G/SPS/GEN/1655.  
47 The following documents were also referenced in the submitted comments: (i) the 2012 Secretariat's 
Note on Observers in the SPS Committee - Their Role and Outstanding Reque sts (G/SPS/GEN/1157); and 
(ii) the 2012 Proposal by Chile and the United States on International Standard Setting Bodies Involvement in 
the WTO SPS Committee in Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  (G/SPS/W/267).  
48 G/SPS/GEN/1157 . 
49 G/SPS/63.  
50 G/SPS/W/304/Add.1 . G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 10 - 
 
  to implementing recommendation 8 of the 2009 workshop.51 Specifically, South Africa proposed that 
the Secretariat write to the ISSBs requesting  that they  analyze the STCs and identify those which 
could have been addressed by the use o f existing international standards. The relevant standard -
setting body  would then submit a report to the Secretariat . The Secretariat  would  share the se report s 
with the Committee and organize a workshop wherein each of the ISSBs would  share its analysis of 
the identified STC(s).  
10.5.   Some Members reiterated concerns about the potential burden on ISSBs if they needed to  
review the numerous STCs discussed in the Committee , given resource constraints ; ISSBs having 
to take positions on STCs in relation to  Members' measures and  existing international standards , 
which could lead to discussions on th e ALOP , which was outside the remit of the ISSBs ; and the 
feasibility of having ISSBs analyze STCs without compromising their independent mandate s. They 
queried the purpose of the ISSB's assessment of STCs, if there would be no obligation following the 
outcome of the assessment.  
10.6.   Other Members were of the view  that there could be a role for ISSBs in providing insights to 
solve trade concerns, but also highlighted that ISSBs would need to find ways to prioritize their 
work, so that they could focus on the more persistent and long -standing STCs first. Members 
indicated their willingness to engage in further discussions on the proposal in order to address these 
concerns.  South Africa further noted that no fundamental opposition to the proposal had been raised , 
but that there were practical concerns,  and reiterated the suggestion  put forward by another Member  
that ISSBs be given an opportunity to respond to the  proposal, in order to facilitate the way forward.  
11  THIRD PARTY ASSURANC E SCHEMES AND DEVELO PMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR 
IMPLEMENTATION OF AR TICLE 13  
11.1.   Belize submitted a proposal  suggest ing that the Committee commence work on the 
development of guidelines for the  implementation of Article 13 of the SPS Agreement.52 The 
submission also included a recommendation to initiate this work either through the formation of an 
ad hoc working group or by holding a workshop. The submission indicate d several areas that could 
be explored if the Committee agreed to first hold a workshop  to explore Members' experiences in 
recognizing third party assurance schemes , CCFIC S work on guidance for competent authorities to 
assess third party assurance schemes, efforts to benchmark such certification programmes with 
international SPS standards, and importing and exporting countries' experiences .  
11.2.   The United States  referred to its  written comments, indicating that it could not support the 
development of guidelines .53 Belize submitted a written statement  addressing the comments, and 
further urg ed Members to support either a workshop or thematic session on third party assurance 
schemes in 2019 .54 
  
                                                
51 Recommendation 8  of the 2009 workshop : Requesting the "Three Sisters " to analyze the current 
specific trade concerns raised in the SPS Committee to see which of these could have been addressed by the 
use of the existing international standards  (Report of the 2009 workshop, G/SPS/R/57).  
52 G/SPS/W/306.  
53 G/SPS/GEN/1655.  
54 G/SPS/GEN/1661.  G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 11 - 
 
  PART B – PERIODIC REVIEW OF  COMMITTEE DECISIONS , GUIDELINES AND 
RECOMME NDATIONS   
12  INTRODUCTION  
12.1.   Within the context of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement, this document provides information on the Decisions, Guidelines and 
Recommendations of the SPS Committee which are to be reviewed as par t of the periodic reviews 
of the SPS Agreement.  
12.2.   Periodic reviews are outlined in several existing decisions, guidelines and recommendations 
of the SPS Committee:  
▪ Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization (G/SPS/11/Rev.1) ; 
▪ Consistency  – Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5  (G/SPS/15) ; 
▪ Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of 
Developing Country Members  (G/SPS/33/Rev.1) ; and  
▪ Recommended Procedure to Encourage and Fa cilitate the Resolution of Specific SPS Issues 
among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2  (G/SPS/61) . 
13  PROCEDURE TO MONITOR  THE PROCESS OF INTE RNATIONAL HARMONIZAT ION 
(G/SPS/11/REV.1 ) 
Periodic Review:  
• The Committee should continue to monitor the use of i nternational standards at each of its 
regular meetings (G/SPS/11/Rev.1). It should continue to review the monitoring procedure 
as part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement, as foreseen in the Decision to Modify 
and Extend the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization.55 
13.1.   Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement require the Committee to develop a procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines 
and recommendations. The Committee initially adopted a Provisio nal Procedure  to Monitor the 
Process of International Harmonization in 1997, and revised  it in November 2004.56 In June 2006, 
the Committee decided to extend this Procedure indefinitely, and to review its operation as an 
integral part of the periodic review  of the operation and implementation of the Agreement under 
Article 12.7.57 
13.2.   The Background Document for the Fifth Review contains  the recommendations on this topic 
resulting from  the Fourth Review, as well as a summary of discussions under th e agenda item  on 
monitoring the use of international standards .58 No Member has suggested a modification of the 
Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization during the Fifth Review.  
14  CONSISTENCY - GUIDELINES TO FURTHE R THE PRACTICAL IMPL EMENTATION OF 
ARTICLE 5.5  (G/SPS/15)  
Periodic Review:  
• As foreseen in the Guidelines to further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 and in the 
Third Review, the Committee should continue to review these Guidelines as part of the periodic 
reviews of the SPS Agreeme nt.59 
                                                
55 Recommendation from the Fourth Review; G/SPS/62, para. 2.14, first bullet . This recommendation 
contains a reference to G/SPS/40, para. 2.  
56 G/SPS/11/Rev.1.  
57 G/SPS/40.  
58 G/SPS/GEN/1612, paras. 1.1 -1.6. 
59 Recommendation from the Fourth Review; G/SPS/62, para. 4.2, second bullet. This recommendation 
contains a reference to G/SPS/15 , Introduction ; and G/SPS/53 , para. 14. G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 12 - 
 
  14.1.   Article 5.5 require s the Committee to develop guidelines to further the practical 
implementation of that provision. The Committee adopted such Guidelines in July  2000, and 
subsequently agreed to review them as part of the periodic review of the opera tion and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement. The Background Document for the Fifth Review contains the 
recommendations on this topic resulting from the Fourth Review.  To date no Member has suggested 
a need to modify these Guidelines. Although there is no standing agenda item regarding Article 5.5, 
there is an opportunity for Members to provide information regarding their experiences in this regard 
under the Agenda Item "Information from Members on Relevant Activities".  
15  PROCEDURE TO ENHANCE  TRANSPARENCY OF SPECIAL AND DIFFEREN TIAL 
TREATMENT IN FAVOUR OF DEVELOPING COUNTR Y MEMBERS  (G/SPS/33/REV.1)  
Periodic Review:  
• As foreseen in the Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment 
in Favour of Developing Country Members, the Committee s hould review its implementation 
as part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement.60 
15.1.   The Committee adopted the Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential 
Treatment in Favour of Developing Country Members  in 2004.61 In 2006, it decided to extend the 
procedure, and to review it again in 2008.62 In 2009, the Committee adopted a revision of the 
procedure, and decided to review it as part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement.  The 
Background Document for the Fifth Review contains the recommendations on this topic resulting 
from the Fourth Review, as well as a summary of discussions under the relevant agenda item.63 No 
Member has submitted a proposal to modify the Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and 
Differential Treatment in Favour of Developing Country Members  during the Fifth Review.  
16  RECOMMENDED PROCEDUR E TO ENCOURAGE AND F ACILITATE THE RESOLU TION OF 
SPECIFIC SPS ISSUES AMONG MEMBERS IN ACC ORDANCE WITH ARTICLE  12.2 
(G/SPS/61 ) 
Periodic  Review:  
• As foreseen  in the Recommended Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of 
Specific SPS Issues among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2, the Committee should 
review its implementation as part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement.64  
16.1.   The Commi ttee adopted the Recommended Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the 
Resolution of Specific SPS Issues among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2  in 2014. As noted 
in the Background Document for the Fifth Review, the Procedure has not been used to date.65 No 
Member has submitted a proposal in relation to this Procedure during the Fifth Review.  
 
_______________  
 
                                                
60 Recommendation from the Fourth Review, G/S PS/62, para. 8.2, fourth bullet. This recommendation 
contains a reference to G/SPS/33/Rev.1 , para. 7. 
61 G/SPS/33.  
62 G/SPS/33/Add.1.  
63 G/SPS/GEN/1612, paras. 8.1 -8.5. 
64 Recommendation from the Fourth Review, G/SPS/62, para. 11.7, first bullet. This recommen dation 
contains a reference to G/SPS/61 , para. 5.1. 
65 G/SPS/GEN/1612, paras. 11.1 -11.5.  
  G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 13 - ANNEX I : LIST OF TOPICS AND PROPOSALS  
Members  ALOP, Risk 
Assessment  
and Science  Annex C  Equivalence  National SPS 
Committees  Notification 
Procedures / 
Transparency   Pesticide MRLs  Regionalizati
on Other Topics  
Argentina, 
Australia, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, 
Colombia, Costa 
Rica, Dominican 
Republic, Japan, 
Kenya, 
Madagascar, 
New Zealand, 
Panama, 
Paraguay, Peru, 
Uganda, 
United  States  and 
Uruguay  - - - - - Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  - - 
Australia  - - G/SPS/W/299  - - Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  - - 
Belize         Development of 
guidelines for 
implementation of 
Article 13 
G/SPS/W/306  
Benin, Burkina 
Faso, Burundi, 
The Gambia, 
Ghana, Kenya, 
Madagascar, 
Morocco, Nigeria, 
United  States and 
Zambia  - - - Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/297  - - - - 
Brazil  G/SPS/W/301, 
G/SPS/W/308  - G/SPS/W/301  - G/SPS/W/300, 
G/SPS/W/312  Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  G/SPS/W/301, 
G/SPS/W/307, 
G/SPS/W/311  Joint submission on 
Fall armyworm  
G/SPS/W/305, 
G/SPS/W/309, 
G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1  
Brazil, 
European  Union 
and United States  - - - - - - G/SPS/W/311    
  G/SPS/W/313  
 
- 14 - Members  ALOP, Risk 
Assessment  
and Science  Annex C  Equivalence  National SPS 
Committees  Notification 
Procedures / 
Transparency   Pesticide MRLs  Regionalizati
on Other Topics  
Brazil, Kenya, 
Madagascar, 
Paraguay, United 
States and 
Uruguay         Joint submission on 
Fall armyworm  
G/SPS/W/305, 
G/SPS/W/309, 
G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1  
Canada  - G/SPS/W/310  G/SPS/W/302/Rev.1  - - Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  - - 
European Union  - - - - - - G/SPS/W/298,  
G/SPS/W/311  - 
South Africa  - - - - - - - Role of Codex, IPPC 
and OIE in addressing 
STCs 
G/SPS/W/304,  
G/SPS/W/304/Add.1  
United States  Topic of interest: 
risk analysis 
(including risk 
communication)  Topic of 
interest  - Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/297  Topic of interest  Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  G/SPS/W/303, 
G/SPS/W/311  Joint submission on 
Fall armyworm  
G/SPS/W/305, 
G/SPS/W/309, 
G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1  
__________