G/SPS/W/348  
 
23 January 2024  
(24-0490) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
  
SIXTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
COMMUNICATION FROM NEW ZEALAND  
The following communication, received on 19 January 2024 , is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of New Zealand . 
 
_______________  
 
 
On the occasion of the Sixth Review of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), New Zealand would like to share four suggestions  for enhancing the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement.  
1  PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION  
1.1  BACKGROUND  
1.1.  We note the three New Zealand papers G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1915 , which highlighted the  renewed interest of the international standard -setting  
bodies (ISSBs) in the implementation of Article 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement. As indicated in 
this series of papers, these Articles envisaged that the SPS Committee 'shall develop a procedure to 
monitor the process o f international harmonization and coordinate efforts with the relevant 
international organisations '. At the time , the Committee agreed to and held a thematic session on 
Article s 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement and initiatives of ISSBs in relation to international 
harmoni zation; however , other suggestions were found not to have enough resources for 
implementation at the time.  
1.2  PROPOSAL – MONITORING THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION  
1.2.  Given the continued discussions in the ISSBs is specifically around the use, implementation, 
and impact of their standards on trade and how best to monitor this process, the  Sixth Review gives 
the Committee an opportunity to rev isit some on the previous proposals.  
• A review/analysis of specific trade concerns (STC) , highlighting the themes and evidence of 
harmonization to ISSB standards ; 
• Relating specifically to Article 12.4, 'The Committee shall develop a procedure to monitor 
the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations. For this purpose, the Committee should, in conjunction with the 
relevant international organizations, establish a list of international standards , guidelines or 
recommendations relating to sanitary or phytosanitary measures which the Committee 
determines to have a major trade impact ': review the list of international standards , etc. 
relating to sanitary or phytosanitary measures which the Committee  determines to have a 
major trade impact. Once the analysis has been undertaken, use the data to inform future 
proposals to monitor the use of the international standards ; and, 
• Reviewing (in consultation with the ISSBs) the notification template to gather more specific 
information on international harmoni zation and ensure that useful data can be extracted 
from the WTO/SPS  notification system. In addition, discuss with the ISSBs what previous 
analysis may have been done to date.  G/SPS/W/348  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  G-90 DOCUMENT FOR THE SPECIAL  SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND 
DEVELOPMENT (CTD -SS) ON 10 AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL 
TREATMENT PROPOSALS  
2.1  BACKGROUND  
2.1.  On 27 February 2023, South Africa on behalf of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and 
Pacific States (OACPS), t he African Group and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group submitted 
a proposal addressing Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) within WTO agreements. 
This included a specific proposal relating to the SPS Agreement, and its provisions under SDT 
Article 10. 
2.2.  The G -90 proposal on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, recogni zes 
the legitimate goal of safeguarding populations' health and well -being and acknowledge s that  
measures prohibiting imports for SPS reasons or imposing cer tification requirements can contribute 
directly and positively to public health and well -being.  
2.3.  The proposal aims to equip capacity -constrained developing countries and LDCs to participate 
effectively and provide meaningful comments in the development stag es of measures or standards 
that would enable them to meet such standards and safeguard their market access.  
2.4.  Part of the objectives of the G -90 proposal is to embed the necessary capacity building and 
technical support to enable them to meet such standards  developed in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.5.  It is this area of the proposal to which New Zealand puts forward our suggestion to address 
some of these concerns by a reinvigorated the SPS Committee mentoring system.  
2.2  PROPOSAL - MENTORING SYSTEM  
2.6.  In respon se to the G -90 Ministerial Conference proposal on  the SPS Agreement, New Zealand 
is proposing to revisit of the mentoring system established in 2007, to provide valuable assistance 
for Members to address some of the concerns raised in the G -90 paper.  
2.7.  In 20 07, New Zealand proposed (and the SPS Committee adopted) a method of assisting LDC 
with the transparency obligations through mentoring ( G/SPS/W/214 ). As noted above , enabling 
LDCs to meet standards developed in accordance with the SPS Agreement still remains challenging 
for some Members, which has been highlighted by the G -90 Ministerial Conference proposal on 
amendments to the SDT Article o f the SPS Agreement.  
2.8.  At the time, the mentoring system established by the Secretariat had limited success. This  was 
mostly due to the inability to contact and connect the Members needing support with mentors in a 
meaningful way.  Now sixteen years on, and t echnology has developed where connecting remotely 
has become much easier, useful, and practical.  
2.9.  The concept of the original transparency mentoring system was to provide developing country 
Members a single contact point for gaining assistance and support t o resolve their individual 
transparency issues. However, as part of addressing some of the G -90 concerns , such mentoring 
support could be extended to other areas of the SPS Agreement as needed.  
2.10.   Developing a mentoring system involves developing a long term,  positive and proactive 
relationship between those involved. It is a relationship based on trust, which requires thoughtful 
interaction and a commitment to provide ongoing assistance and support to those being mentored. 
A set of criteri a would need to be d eveloped for both the roles.  
2.11.   Much as with the original proposal, the types of support a mentoring Member could offer are:  
• email/phone contact point for issues ; 
• legislative guidance ; 
• assistance with resources ; 
• assistance with translations ; G/SPS/W/348  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • assistance with training.  
2.12.   Members that wish to be involved would register with the SPS Secretariat.  
2.13.   Mentoring Members would provide information on the level of mentoring they could offer, and 
the supported Members would indicate their level of need. The Se cretariat would then pair the 
Members based on the information provided and on geographical region and language.  
2.14.   A review process would be integrated into the system, to ensure that the system meets its 
objective of providing reliable and focused assistanc e on key areas of the SPS Agreement.  
3  MEANING AND UNDERSTANDING OF TERMS SUCH AS RESERVATION AND ABSTENTION 
FROM ACCEPTANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WTO SPS AGREEMENT  
3.1  BACKGROUND  
3.1.  As we are all aware , the WTO SPS Agreement had a major impact on the work of inter national 
standard -setting  bodies, specifically Codex, WOAH and IPPC , by providing specific recognition and 
status as international standards and provided significant impetus to international harmoni zation. 
When  WTO M embers base their national standards and  regulations on international standards 
developed by Codex, WOAH and the IPPC , they are deemed to be in accordance with the provisions 
of the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
3.2.  Since the adoption of the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements, the focus and effort has been largel y 
to promote the development of international standards for use by Members of the above -mentioned 
organizations. The outputs of Codex, WOAH and IPPC are in line with their role and purpose as 
defined in their statutes and rules and are based on the input a nd participation of their members.  
3.3.  While most of the standards and related outputs of Codex, for instance, are adopted by 
consensus, there have been occasions when members have expressed reservations at the time of 
adoption of a standard and have their pos itions recorded in the report of the meeting while not 
objecting to the advancement/adoption of the standard.  
3.4.  Another term that has come up for scrutiny in Codex relates to situations when members agree 
on science but hold differing views on other factors.  In such situation members may not merely 
express opposition to a standard , but also indicate their 'abstention from acceptance ' and have their 
positions reflected in the report of the meeting. In situations when consensus is not possible, 
Codex  rules prov ide for decision on the basis of voting.  
3.5.  Recent discussions in Codex around terms such as reservation and abstention from acceptance 
have highlighted the need and value of promoting informal exchanges among WTO M embers on the 
meaning and understanding of t erms such as those mentioned above in the context of the SPS 
Agreement. The interest here is not to seek a formal legal interpretation but rather to encourage 
Members to share their understanding of these terms. Such a discussion could be helpful guidance 
for standard -setting bodies as they seek to progress issues in situations when Members have 
differing views , especially with respect to non -science considerations.  
3.2  PROPOSAL  
3.6.  It is proposed that the SPS Committee agree to promote informal exchanges among Members 
on the meaning and understanding of terms such as 'reservation ' and 'abstention from acceptance ' 
in terms of the WTO SPS Agreement and facilitate more informed consideration of these terms during 
the process of standards development and decision making in the standards development 
organi zations.  G/SPS/W/348  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4  NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES UNDER THE SPS COMMITTEE - USE O F TBT/SPS  
NOTIFICATIONS  
4.1  BACKGROUND  
4.1.  Transparency stands as a fundamental principle in WTO Agreements, chiefly grounded in 
notification requirements. The SPS Agreement's notification provisions ensure the sharing of 
essential factual details regarding a Memb er's regulatory intentions and potential trade impacts of 
new measures. This facilitates early bilateral or SPS Committee comments from trading partners. 
This notification system is one of the Agreement 's most important functions, with thousands of 
notific ations being made since the Agreement 's ratification in 1995.  
4.2.  However, to be effective, it is necessary that WTO Members fully comply with all notification 
conditions, starting with notifications being made under the most appropriate agreement.  
4.3.  Observation s indicate that some measures notified under the Technical Barrier to Trade (TBT) 
Agreement might also fall within the scope of the SPS Agreement. Given the overlapping areas 
regulated by both Agreements, determining the specific agreement under which to n otify a measure 
is not always straightforward. Furthermore, many measures have multiple objectives, subjecting 
them to both agreements' disciplines. In these situations, a case may be made for such measures 
to be notified to both the SPS and the TBT Commit tees. 
4.4.  As previously noted in discussions during and following the Fifth Review, Members have raised 
several issues regarding the notification of measures not clearly fitting within the scope of either the 
SPS or TBT Agreements.  
4.5.  New Zealand recognizes that this confusion impacts on Members' ability to respond, comment, 
and adapt to such new regulatory measures. This proposal seeks to enhance the SPS and TBT ePing 
notification system by initiating a discussion on where to notify measures that do not neatly al ign 
with a single committee.  
4.6.  Noting that the TBT Committee is looking to address this issue as well and has previously 
discussed similar associated impacts and solutions, there is an opportunity for coordinated efforts 
from both Committees to identify and implement integrated solutions.  
4.7.  A summary of previous discussions in both the TBT and SPS Committee relating to notifications 
is noted in Annex 1 of this document.  
4.2  PROPOSAL – ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY  
4.8.  The Sixth Review is an opportunity to propose further solu tions, collaboration with the 
TBT Committee, to find innovative ways to address this growing and ongoing issue.  
4.9.  We propose a three -step process:  
1. Discussion/stocktake of challenges faced by Members in situations where it is difficult to establish 
whether a measure falls under the TBT and/or SPS Agreement ; 
2. Discussion/stocktake of Members ' responses to these situations ; 
3. Discussion of possible solution : 
− Ideas for how SPS and TBT Committee members can coordinate a solution:  
• Form a small working group w ith members from both Committees to work through the 
issues and offer recommendations for adoption in both Committees ; 
• If a small working group is not agreed, then encourage the TBT Committee to adopt the 
same amended recommendations and adapted approaches  as the SPS Committee.  
− Options for solutions for improving the current system:  
• Template change – tick box and criteria to consider TBT or SPS ; 
• ePing integration – AI system of deciding where the notification should be made ; G/SPS/W/348  
 
- 5 - 
 
  • Create a guidance document – include in next addition of the SPS procedural manual ; 
• Develop a simple criterion – e.g. if the regulation mentions food, animals or plants it 
must be notified under both TBT and SPS ; 
• Make the guidance document and criteria easily accessible through using th e SPS 
capacity webpage and also link it to the templates so those using the template have it 
easily available to ensure the template is completed in full ; 
• When submitting a notification in ePing, as with other items in the template, set the 
system to make the person making the notification clearly identify they have considered 
whether it is only an SPS notification or whether there should also be a TBT notification 
as well.  
   
  G/SPS/W/348  
 
- 6 - Annex 1 - SPS and TBT Committee discussions held on establishing a joint mechanism for common issues.  
Comment  Forum  
SPS Committee  TBT Committee  
Noted challenges related to situations 
where a Member considers it difficult to 
establish – or foresee – whether a draft 
technical regulation falls under the TBT 
and/or SPS Agreement  Meeting:  Report of the Fifth Review of the Operation 
and Implementation of the SPS Agreement  
 
 
Outcome: Agreement to adopt recommendations 
from Brazil and Canada:  
 
• The Secretariat initially updated the SPS 
notification templates to include a new section 
'related notification’ be completed by Members, 
when a SPS measure is notified to other 
Committees or when there are other related 
notifications.  
• The final recommenda tion was the Members 
should include this information under the point of 
the notification format titled "Other relevant 
documents and language(s) in which these are 
available".  
• Members agreed that notifications should be 
submitted as quickly as possible und er both 
Agreements, even if simultaneous submissions 
not always possible.  Meeting: Eighth Triennial Review – November 2018  
 
Submission from Brazil  proposing thematic sessions 
and workshops, with a view to developing practical 
guidelines for notifications.  
 
Outcome:  
Agreement to exchange information, in co -operation 
with the SPS Committee, on practices used in 
situations where a Member considers it i s difficult to 
establish whether a draft technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure may fall under the 
TBT and/or the SPS Agreement.    
  G/SPS/W/348  
 
- 7 - Comment  Forum  
SPS Committee  TBT Committee  
Exchange of experiences on difference 
in scope between the SPS and TBT 
Agreements, and notification of 
measures containing both SPS and TBT 
elements.  Meeting:  Workshop on Transparency and 
Coordination – 15-16 July 2019  
 
The objective of the workshop was to focus on the 
difference in scope between the SPS and TBT 
Agreements, and on notification o f measures 
containing both SPS and TBT elements.  
 
WTO Secretariat reviewed the objectives and 
coverage of the SPS and TBT Agreements, related 
discussions in the respective Committees and 
examples of measures notified under both 
agreements.  
 
The question o f coverage of the SPS/TBT provisions 
was not new, as already back in 1995 -1996 the SPS 
and TBT Committees, jointly as well as separately, 
had discussed how to identify and notify measures 
that may contain SPS and TBT elements.  
 
It was noted that the SPS C ommittee had adopted a 
recommendation to notify cross -cutting measures 
under both Agreements. Through an interactive 
exercise, participants were challenged to define 
whether a measure fell within the scope of one or 
both Agreements.  
 
Outcome:  
 
Matters raised and acknowledged by the Committee.  Meeting: Thematic Session on Transparency  – 
18-19 June 2019  
 
Secretariat Background Note  noted this has been 
an ongoing issue, first discussed in 1995 -1996, in both 
the TBT and SPS Committe es. Following those early 
discussions, the SPS Committee – but not the TBT 
Committee – adopted a recommendation that a 
regulation containing both TBT and SPS measures 
should be notified under both agreements 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.4 ) 
 
Proposal from Brazil for the  TBT Committee to 
"encourage " Members to reflect on the benefits of 
notifying simultaneously to both [TBT and SPS] 
Committees.  
 
"Best practice" suggestion from Canada for Members 
to indicate in their notification if the regulation has 
been notified to another Committee; for example, in 
the Description of Content Section.  
 
The European Union stressed the importance of 
indicating whether a notified measure falls under both 
the TBT and SPS Agreements. Non -simultaneous SPS 
and TBT notifications could preven t Members from 
submitting identical comments in such cases.  
 
Outcome:  
Matters raised and acknowledged by the Committee.  
 
The Committee requested the Secretariat improve and 
streamline current online TBT tools, including ePing, 
and work towards integrating  these tools into a more 
comprehensive centralized platform    
  G/SPS/W/348  
 
- 8 - Comment  Forum  
SPS Committee  TBT Committee  
To upgrade the SPS and TBT 
information management systems for 
better alignment  
 
To upgrade ePing to an integrated 
platform to:  
• allow Members to notify under both 
agreements.  
• to track these notifications to 
ensure the accuracy of research 
results (e.g., by introducing an 
automatic procedure for this)  N/A – has yet to be discussed in the SPS 
Committee.  Meeting:  
Ninth Triennial Review – November 2021 : Committee 
requested the Secretariat improve and streamline 
current online TBT tools, including ePing, and work 
towards integrating these tools into a more 
comprehe nsive centralised system.  
 
Outcome:  
Recommendation noted.  
 
 
__________