G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6  
 
28 July 2020 
(20-5233) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
FIFTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES  
OVERVIEW  OF PAPERS AND PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  
Note by the Secretariat1 
Revision  
Members have submitted the following proposals and suggestions for consideration during the F ifth 
Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on the Application of Sani tary and 
Phytosanitary Measures:  
1  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombi a, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, 
Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the 
United  States,  and Uruguay2 (G/SPS/W/292/ Rev.4) 
1.1.  The Committee should play a constructive role in addressing the  broad range of MRL -related 
issues that are currently having a significant impact on trade in food and agricultural products. 
The submission includes several recommendations for incorporation into the Fifth Review Report in 
order to advance work in the Comm ittee on trade -related issues on MRLs . These recommendations 
cover the following themes : (i) e nabling  JMPR to better respond to increased demand and monitor 
progress on new Codex MRLs ; (ii) strengthen ing notification practices of Members for greater 
transp arency and predictability on MRLs; (iii) report ing to the Committee on international and 
regional activities on MRLs; (iv) c ollaborating  on solutions for MRLs for minor use and specialty 
crops; and (v) discuss ing the role of the Committee in increasing coo rdination and harmonization.  
2  Australia  (G/SPS/W/ 299) 
2.1.  The Committee should  explore the impediments to the application of the concept and practices 
of equivalence to manage SPS risks in trade. The submission includes a suggestion that the 
SPS Committee could expand on existing guidance on recognition of equivalence ( G/SPS/19/Rev.2 ) 
in relation to systems approaches for achieving equivalence in achieving the importing Members ' 
appropriate level of protection of plant, animal and human health while permitting trade to begin, 
continue or resume. In addition, the subm ission recommends that the Fifth Review should draw on 
the existing and ongoing work of the ISSBs.  
3  Belize  (G/SPS/W/30 6) 
3.1.  The Committee should commence work o n the development of guidel ines for the 
implementation of Article 13 of the SPS Agreement. The submission includes a recommendation to 
initiate this work either through the formation of an ad hoc working group or by holding a workshop. 
The submission  also indicates that if the Commi ttee agree d to first hold a workshop, it might  wish 
to explore  the following areas : (i) Members ' experience in recognizing third party assurance 
 
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 Ministers of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, 
Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the United States and Uruguay signed a joint 
statement supporting the recommendations contained in this submission. See WT/MIN(17)/52 . G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6  
 
- 2 - 
 
  schemes; (ii) CCFICS presentation on " Guidance for Competent Authorities to assess third Party 
Assurance and it s Potential to Inform National Food Control System Planning "; (iii) a t hird party 
certification programme owner , a buyer or a retailer and their procedures in benchmarking with 
national requirements or  with the standards, guidelines and recommendations of international 
standard -setting bodies  recognized by the SPS Agreement; and  (iv) e xperiences of both exporting 
and importing countries on  third party assurance schemes.  
4  Belize  (G/SPS/W/316 ) 
4.1.  The Committee should  hold a thematic session3 on voluntary third -party assurance 
programme s, in view of the ongoing work being undertaken by CCFICS on the use of voluntary 
third-party assurance to inform national food control system planning, and the current pilot projects 
that will be undertaken in Belize, Honduras, Mali, Senegal and Uganda. T he submission outlines the 
four main areas that could be covered in a thematic session . The submission also includes specific 
language on  the recommendation  to hold a thematic session for the report of the Fifth Review . 
5  Belize  (G/SPS/W/320 ) 
5.1.  The submission outlines a proposed draft programme for the T hematic Session on Voluntary 
Third-Party Assurance Programmes  scheduled to be held  in March 2020. The submission proposes 
that the thematic session focus on: (i) relevant international standards; (ii) Members' experience s 
in recognizing voluntary third -party assurance program mes for use as part of official SPS control 
systems; (iii) sharing of Members' experiences (exporting and importing) on third -party assurance 
programmes; (iv) private sector experiences regarding voluntary third -party assurance programmes 
used as part of official  SPS control systems; and (v) capacity building efforts.  
6  Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, 
Nigeria, the United States and Zambia (G/SPS/W/297 ) 
6.1.  The Committee should examine how to strengthen national SPS committees to enhance 
coordination at the national, regional and internation al levels. The submission includes a 
recommendation for a workshop or thematic session to be held in late 2018 or early 2019 in order 
to exchange experiences  on several identified topics related to national SPS committees . The topics 
identified for further  discussion are: (i) the mechanism for establishment and composition of national 
SPS committees ; (ii) the role of the private sector in advising or providing input to national SPS 
committees ; (iii) the procedures for developing national SPS strategies and positions in regional and 
international organizations; (iv) the use of established informati on exchange mechanisms; and 
(v) the role of national SPS committees  in advocacy. The submission also indicates  that, following 
the Committee 's examination of these matters, other Members ' views would be welcomed as to 
whether a "good practices" document would be useful to Members . 
7  Brazil (G/SPS/W/ 300) 
7.1.  The Committee should review the notification procedures under the SPS Committee in order to 
address the challenges arising from measures not clearly fitting within the sc ope of the SPS or 
TBT Agreement . In particular, the Committee should review  the practices guiding the notification of 
the measure under one or both of the Agreements , in order to  enhance predictability and 
transparency . The submission includes a recommendation to organize  thematic sessions and 
workshops, with a view to developing practical guidelines for notifications.  
8  Brazil (G/SPS/W/301 ) 
8.1.  The SPS Agreement provides a solid base for the treatment of regulatory issues in the area of 
trade in agricultural products, but it is necessary to reinforce its features to ensure t he attainment 
of its objectives. In particular, t he Committee should discuss the following issues , with a view to 
contributing to possible concrete results :  
 
3 The original proposal referred to "a thematic session or workshop", however in the July 2019 
SPS Committee meeting, Bel ize informed the Committee that the four areas indicated in its proposal would be 
best covered in a one -day thematic session, as opposed to a two -day workshop.  G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6  
 
- 3 - 
 
  (i) Scientific justification ( Article 2.2) and risk assessment  – the Committee should 
reaffirm the sci entific basis of the SPS Agreement, thereby limiting the use of SPS measures 
as an arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade ;  
(ii) Equivalence (Article 4)  – Members should recognize the importance of the Decision 
(G/SPS/19/Rev.2 ), 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 ;  
(iii) Risk assessment and determination of the appropriate level of SPS protection 
(Article 5)  – Members could discuss guidelines t o ensure that the factors to be taken into 
account in risk assessment, as provided for in Articles 5.2 and 5.3, are appraised in ways 
supported by scientific evidence and methods . Members could also discuss ways to avoid 
the misuse of Article 5.7 ; and  
(iv) Regionalization (Article 6)  – Members could consider the option of automatically 
recognizing a disease status granted by the OIE . A similar recognition by the IPPC should 
also be encouraged.  
9  Brazil (G/SPS/W/307 )4 
9.1.  The Committee should develop and promote the implementation of provisions related to 
adaptation to regional conditions, including pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence. The submission includes several recommendations: (i) Members should reaffirm 
that regionalization, as a fundamental principle of the SPS Agreement, is an importa nt and necessary 
tool for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, while promoting and facilitating trade 
in agricultural and animal products; (ii) Members should continue their commitment to share 
experiences and information on their inter nal regulatory systems with a view to improving the 
implementation of regionalization provisions; (iii) the OIE and the IPPC are invited to share with the 
SPS Committee the outcome of their on -going work, experience and activities in relation to 
regionaliz ation, recognition of pest -free-areas and trade facilitation; and (iv) the Committee should 
examine the Guidelines on Article 6 ( G/SPS/48 ) in order to assess their effectiveness and their 
implementation, as well as to streamline and improve the Guidelines, with a view to promote the 
recognition, expeditiously and without un due dela y, of pest - or disease -free areas and areas of low 
pest or disease prevalence granted by the relevant international organizations.  
10  Brazil (G/SPS/W/308 )5 
10.1.   The Committee should develop and promote the adoption of scie nce-based procedures for the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement. The submission includ es several recommendations: 
(i) Members should be urged to recognize that the risk assessment, as regulated under Article 5.1, 
is the main criteria and means by which sc ientific justification is attained for the adoption and 
implementation of SPS measures; (ii) Members should – when making notifications of corresponding 
provisional measures – specify that they are taken under Article 5.7, stating their views on the 
insuff iciency of scientific evidence in relation to the issue that gave origin to the measure and that 
the Member has sought and will continuously seek additional information in order to review the 
measure accordingly and wit hin a reasonable period of time; and (iii) the Committee should ask 
Codex Alimentarius, as well as other relevant international organizations, to work on the procedural 
steps necessary, given the impossibility of establishing a proper risk assessment, for the adoption 
and application of provi sional measures.  
11  Brazil (G/SPS/W/3 12)6 
11.1.   The submission provides inputs on the proposed draft programme for the Workshop on 
Transparency and Coordination.7 The submission outlines detailed themes to be covered under two 
 
4 This proposal on regionalization replaces the relevant sections of the previous submission 
(G/SPS/W/301 ). 
5 This proposal on scientific justification, risk assessment a nd appropriate level of protection replaces 
the relevant sections of the previous submission ( G/SPS/W/301 ). 
6 This proposal builds on Brazil's previous submission on notification procedures ( G/SPS/W/300 ). 
7 G/SPS/GEN/16 94. G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6  
 
- 4 - 
 
  sessions: (i) introduction of relevant provisions and procedural aspects by the Secretariat; and 
(ii) Members ' experience with submitting notifications and incoming notifications.  
12  Brazil, the European Union, and the United States  (G/SPS/W/311 ) 
12.1.   The Committee should advance shared understanding of the implementation and operation 
of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. The joint submission references the proposals contained in the 
individual papers previously submitted by Members under the Fifth Review8 aimed at  strengthen ing 
the understanding and implementation of regionalization. The submission invites Members, and 
representatives of IPPC and OIE , to engage in a more focused discussio n at the informal meeting of 
the Committee in July 2019, with the goal of identifying consensus recommendations for the Fifth 
Review. In order to facilitate this process, the submission invites Members , as well as representatives 
of IPPC and OIE,  to review  a set of questions for discussion and provide comments by 10 May 2019.  
13  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay (G/SPS/W/305 ) 
13.1.   The Committee should consider fall armyworm as a case study to discuss the application of 
the principles affirmed in the SPS Agreement to enable greater access to tools and technologies in 
the quest for safer and more sustainable agriculture and to prevent food insecurity. The submission 
includes a recommendation for interested Members of the Committee to form a working group for 
the purpose of  undertaking several activities, which include to: (i) examine, identify and discuss 
examples of Members ' effective use of principles such as risk analysis, scientific evidence, 
harmonization, international standards, and transparency to enable greater access to safe tools and 
technologies to manage fall armyworm in Africa; and (ii) collect and compile information resulting 
from collaboration in the area of field trials, data port ability, common application dossiers, joint risk 
assessments and mutual recognition, among others.  
14  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay (G/SPS/W/309 , 
G/SPS/W/309/C orr.1 ) 
14.1.   The submission outlines  a proposed draft programme for a Thematic Session on  Enabling  
Access to Tools and Technologies : Fall Armyworm Case Study  to be held in March 2 019. 
The submission proposes that the thematic session focus on: (i) the SPS Agreement; (ii) fall 
armyworm – the problem, the tools and technologies; (iii) global, regional and national frameworks; 
and (iv)  Member experiences – successes and challenges in improving regulatory  frameworks to 
support farmer access to safe and effective tools and technologies.  
15  Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay  and the United States (G/SPS/W/317 ) 
15.1.   The submission provides an initial compilation of concepts that support collaboration at the 
regional and international level and that can be employed, on a voluntary basis, to improve an d 
streamline regulatory processes, while safeguarding human, plant and animal health. The concepts 
outlined in the submission are: (i) data portability; (ii) common application dossiers; (iii) joint risk 
assessments; (iv) adaptation to regional conditions;  (v) unilateral recognition; (vi) mutual 
recognition; (vii) familiarity; (viii) history of safe use; (ix) equivalence; (x) harmonization; and 
(xi) emergency use authorization. The submission proposes that these concepts could productively 
be a subject of f urther Committee discussion in connection with fall armyworm and could be 
assembled into a Committee document, connected to the Fifth Review, on approaches to streamline 
regulatory processes with respect to fall armyworm.  
16  Canada  (G/SPS/W/ 302/Rev.1) 
16.1.   The Committee should consider holding a workshop or thematic session on Article 4 
(Equivalence) as part of the Fifth Review, in order to provide Members with an opportunity to expand 
their knowledge of the concept of equivalence. The submission includes va rious elements which 
could be examined by Members in the workshop or thematic session: the equivalence obligations in 
the SPS Agreement; the guidance provided in the Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 of the 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitar y and Phytosanitary Measures  (G/SPS/19/Rev.2 ); 
the jurisprudence relati ng to Article 4 in decisions of the Dispute Settlement Body; the work of the 
 
8 G/SPS/W/298 , G/SPS/W/303  and G/SPS/W/307 . G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6  
 
- 5 - 
 
  ISSBs on developing international standards, guidelines and recommendations referring or relating 
to equivalence; Members ' experience implementing the concept of equivalence; as w ell as any best 
practices that can be shared concerning the implementation of the obligations, guidelines or 
recommendations on equivalence. The submission also indicates the possibility of including other 
topics of interest relating to equivalence as iden tified by other Members, such as systems approaches 
for achieving equivalence, as part of the workshop or thematic session.  
17  Canada  (G/SPS/W/310 ) 
17.1.   The Committee should consider holding a thematic session on app roval procedures in 
November 2019 as part of the Fifth Review, in order to provide Members with an opportunity to 
discuss issues concerning the implementation of Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
The submission includes various elements which cou ld be examined by Members in the thematic 
session: obligations  of Article 8 and Annex C as they relate to approval procedures (e.g. undue 
delay, transparency, information requirements); relevant jurisprudence; relevant ISSBs work 
regarding approval procedu res; and experiences, best practices, and challenges faced by Members.  
The submission also welcomes other topics of interest relating to approval procedures as identified 
by other Members, for examination by the Committee as part of the proposed thematic session.  
18  Canada  (G/SPS/W/3 21) 
18.1.   The Committee should  continue its w ork on approval procedures through the establishment 
of an electronic working group open to the participation of all Members and Observers.  
The submission indicates that t he electronic working group would continue to examine the topic of 
approval procedure s, including pre -market product approvals, and further consider the Committee's 
role. In particular, the electronic working group w ould: (1) explore the key challenges of approval 
procedures that impact international trade and consider challenges that the Committee should seek 
to address ; (2) examine the principles of approval procedures that facilitate international trade while 
meeting the importing Member's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection and 
consider the Committee's role in high lighting these principles ; (3) consider the available tools and 
best practices to enhance the implementation of the obligations of the SPS Agreement as they apply 
to approval procedures ; and (4) give  consideration to possible future work of the Committee o n 
approval procedures.  
18.2.   The submission further  indicates that t he electronic working group w ould report on its work 
during the SPS Committee meetings to keep the Committee informed of its deliberations. 
While  working primarily electronically, the working gr oup may meet, as appropriate, as a physical 
working group on the margins of the SPS Committee meetings, such as at the informal 
SPS Committee meeting. The submission  proposes that the electronic working group on approval 
procedures should commence its work  following the March 2020 SPS Committee meeting.  
19  Canada  (G/SPS/W/328 ) 
19.1.   The submission  includes  a proposal to initiate the way forward for the work of the working 
group on approval procedures, by way of a proposed process  which outlines: the title of the working 
group; its functions and reporting approach to the Committee; participation and stewards ; 
description of work; language of the working group; and proposed timelines and next steps.  
20  The European Union (G/SPS/W/ 298) 
20.1.   The Committee should examine the topic of regionalization (pest- and disease -free areas) and 
ensure that any further work of the SPS Committee on regionalization would build on the on -going 
work of the i nternational standard -setting bodies, and on WTO jurisprudence. The submission 
includes specific proposals for action by the SPS Committee: (i) invite the OIE to share with the 
SPS Committee the outcome of its on -going work in relation to regionalizati on and trade facilitation; 
(ii) invite the IPPC to conduct a similar survey, and to share information about its on -going activities 
and about any experience it may have about the implementation of its standards in relation to pest -
free areas; (iii) with the assistance of the WTO Secretariat, look at recent WTO jurisprudence on 
regionalization both in the animal health and plant health domains; and  (iv) examine the Guidelines 
on Article 6 ( G/SPS/48 ) in order to assess their effectiveness, to what extent they are actually 
followed by Members and, if needed, identify areas  which could be improved.  G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6  
 
- 6 - 
 
  21  South Africa ( G/SPS/W/304  and G/SPS/W/304/Add.1 ) 
21.1.   The Committee should consider the role of international organizatio ns in addressing SPS 
issues in relation to providing advice to the SPS Committee on specific trade concerns (STCs) that 
are raised during the meetings. The submission includes a proposal to invite Codex, IPPC and OIE 
to speak in the Committee when a trade concern relates to their area (i.e. food safety, phytosanitary 
and animal health issues respectively). The submission outlines that the purpose of the three sisters ' 
interventions would be to indicate if there is a relevant international standard, recommen dation or 
guideline, and to assist the Committee to locate information that may facilitate the discussion of 
STCs. The submission also indicates that the comments by the three sisters would be of an advisory 
nature only and must be understood to be in thei r own responsibility and not binding on any 
WTO Member.  
21.2.   The addendum to the submiss ion proposes th e implementation of recommendation 8 of the 
2009 workshop  on the relationship between the SPS Committee and the ISSBs .9 Specifically, the 
submission recommends that the Secretariat write to the ISSBs requesting : (i) to analyze the STCs 
and to identify those which could have been addressed by the use of existing  international standards . 
The relevant Sister Organization would then submit a report to the Secretariat ; and (ii) u pon receipt 
of this report from each of the three Sisters, it is proposed that the Secretariat share the report with 
the Committee and organ ize a workshop wherein each of the three Sisters will share its analysis of 
the identified STC(s).  
22  The United States  (G/SPS/W/303 ) 
22.1.   The Committee should consider concrete activities and focused areas of discussion that could 
contribute to Members ' ability and preparedness to strengthen the implementation and operation of 
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. The submission includes specific suggestions for Members and the 
Committee to address several challenges related to regionalization for animal health that may realize 
increased opportunities to facilitate safe trade in animals and a nimal products: (i) activities to 
promote greater understanding of regionalization; and (ii) activities to assist Members overcome 
challenges in implementing regionalization.  
23  The United States  
23.1.   The United States also indicated interest in examining the foll owing topics under the 
Fifth Review: transparency, Annex C, and risk analysis (including risk communication).  
 
_______________  
 
9 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 ).  
  G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6  
 
- 7 - ANNEX I: LIST OF TOPICS AND PROPOSALS  
Members  ALOP, Risk 
Assessment and 
Science  Annex C  Equivalence  National SPS 
Coordination 
Mechanisms  Notification 
Procedures/ 
Transparency  MRLs  for Plant 
Protection Products  Regionalization  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 ; 
thematic session  on 
voluntary third -party 
assurance 
programmes 
G/SPS/W/316 ; and 
draft programme for 
Thematic Session on 
Voluntary Third -Party 
Assurance 
Programmes 
(G/SPS/W/320 ) 
Benin, Burkina 
Faso, Burundi, 
The G ambia, 
Ghana, Kenya, 
Madagascar, 
Morocco, 
Nigeria, 
United  States 
and Zambia  - - - Joint 
submission  
G/SPS/W/297  - - - -  
  G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6  
 
- 8 - Members  ALOP, Risk 
Assessment and 
Science  Annex C  Equivalence  National SPS 
Coordination 
Mechanisms  Notification 
Procedures/ 
Transparency  MRLs  for Plant 
Protection Products  Regionalization  Other Topics  
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 ,  
G/SPS/W/317  
Brazil, European 
Union and 
United States  - - - - - - G/SPS/W/311  - 
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  
Brazil, Kenya, 
Paraguay and 
United States  - - - - - - - Joint submission on 
Fall armyworm   
G/SPS/W/317  
Canada  - G/SPS/W/310 , 
G/SPS/W/321 , 
G/SPS/W/328  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, OIE 
and IPPC with respect 
to 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 ,
G/SPS/W/317  
__________