G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
29 January 2020  
(20-0694) Page: 1/16 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
FIFTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE AGRE EMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION O F SANITARY AND PHYTO SANITARY MEASURES  
COMPILATION OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATION S SUBMITTED  BY MEMBERS  FOR THE FIFTH REVIEW  
Note by the Secretariat1 
Revision  
The following draft recommendations  for the Fifth Review Report , and other suggestions , have been 
compiled from the proposals submitted under the Fifth Review, and Members' written inputs in 
response to  the Chairperson's request at the July 2019 S PS Committee meeting , the 
September  2019 consultations , and the November 2019 SPS Committee meeting . 
This compilation is presented in two sections: (i) Section 1 - which presents the most recent 
recommendations/suggestions submitted by Members after the No vember 2019 SPS Committee 
meeting; and (ii) Section 2 – which presents the earlier recommendations/suggestions  compiled 
from Members' proposals , and Members ' written inputs  after the July 2019 SPS Committee meeting 
and the September 2019 consultations.  Within each section, the recommendations are ordered 
alphabetically by topic, similar to the format used in the revised draft Report of the Fifth Review 
(G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 ). 
Members had been invited to submit comments on the recommendations /suggestions  in Section 1 
of G/SPS/W/318/Rev.2  by the deadline of Friday, 24 January 2020. Members are invited to provide 
further comments at the information consultations to be held on Friday, 7 February 2020 . 
A compilation of Members' initial comments on the draft Report of the Fifth Review is also available 
in G/SPS/W/315/Rev.1 . 
SECTION  1 - RECOMMENDATIONS SUB MITTED AFTER THE NOV EMBER 2019 SPS 
COMMITTEE MEETING  
The following recommendations/suggestions were submitted by Members after the November 2019 
SPS Committee meeting.2 These latest recommendations/suggestions  and related comments are in 
response to the draft recommendations included in the revised draft Report of the Fifth Review  
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 . In addition, two Member s (Japan and the United States ) submitted comments 
on the previous version of this do cument (i.e. G/SPS/W /318/Rev.2 ) in January 2020; these have 
been reflected below.  
 
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 Members were invited to provide written inputs on the recommendations/sugges tions by Friday, 
29 November 2019. Following which,  the Secretariat circulated a compilation of submitted comments in 
document G/SPS/W/318/Rev.2 . Members were further invited to provide any additional comments in writing by 
Friday, 24 January 2020.  
 G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF  PROTECTION, RISK AS SESSMENT AND SCIENCE  
1.1  Brazil and Canada  
1.1.  Recommendations/suggestions on appropriate level of protection, risk assessment and 
science:  
a. Members recognize the importance of ensuring that their respective sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures are based on scientific principles.   
b. Members recognize the importance of a key obligation of the SPS Agreement that Members 
base their measures on an assessment of risks to human, animal, or plant life or health 
that is appropriate to the circumstances and takes into account risk assessment techniques 
develop ed by relevant international organizations . 
1.2  Canada  
1.2.  Recommendations/suggestions on appropriate level of prot ection , risk assessment and 
science:  
a. The Committee should hold a workshop in June 2020 on risk assessment, management, 
and communication.  
1.3  United States  
1.3.  Comments in relation to the joint recommendation s by Brazil and Canada on the appropriate 
level of prote ction, risk assessment and science in paragraph s 1.1a and 1.1b : 
a. As a general matter, Members are obligated to ensure these SPS Agreement requirements, 
like all others, are implemented in their national and regional systems. Thus, there should 
be no need to  recognize these obligations in particular.   
b. While we fully agree on the importance of these provisions of the SPS Agreement to 
protecting health and to facilitating trade, we have concerns about selective recognition 
of particular SPS Agreement obligation s. The selection of some obligations, but not others, 
raises questions about obligations that are not reaffirmed.   
c. Therefore, the United States questions the value of Committee recommendations in which 
Members ' recognize these SPS obligations.   
d. The United States suggests:  
The Committee encourages Members to review periodically the SPS measures 
implemented in their national and/or regional systems, and their risk assessment 
techniques, in light of developments in scientific evidence and updates issued by Cod ex, 
the OIE, or the IPPC, if any.  
1.4.  Comments in relation to the recommendation by Canada on the appropriate level of protection, 
risk assessment and science in paragraph 1.2a:  
a. The Committee has agreed to this proposal, so no need to include in the Report of the 
5th Review.  
1.5.  Comments in relation to Brazil's recommendations/suggestions on appropriate level of 
protection, risk assessment and science in paragraph 9.1a (Section 2):  
a. As indicated in JOB/SPS/2/Rev.4  and the comments in G/SPS/GEN/1655 , the 
United  States does not support these recommendations as formulated here and refer to 
our proposed suggestions below in paragraph 1.6 as a potential way forward for the 
Committee.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.6.  Comments in relation to Canada's recommendations/suggestions on appropriate level of 
protection, risk assessment and science in paragraphs 9.2a and 9.2b (Section 2):  
a. The United States suggests an alternative formulation to paragraphs 9.2a and 9.2b:  
i. The Committee should continue to discuss the topic of risk, including management 
of situations involving insufficient scientific information, and consider next steps for 
discussion.   
ii. The Committee invites Members to share experiences and examples of national 
efforts to consider: (1) scientific uncertainty; and (2) availability of insuffic ient 
scientific evidence in risk analysis and the development and implementation of SPS 
measures.  
2  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDU RES (ANNEX C)  
2.1  Canada  
2.1.  Recommendations/suggestions on control, inspection and approval procedures:  
a. The Committee reaffir ms the importance of Article 8 and Annex C on Control, Inspection 
and Approval Procedures.  
b. The Committee should continue discussions and information exchange on the topic of 
control, inspection and approval procedures, with an emphasis on approval procedu res. 
To that end, the Committee will establish a formal SPS Committee agenda item on Annex  C 
under the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement agenda item to enable 
Members to share information on this topic.  
c. Following the fruitful exchange of e xperiences and ideas at the November 2019 
SPS Committee Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee shall create an 
electronic working group open to the participation of all Members and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval proc edures. The electronic working group, 
outlined in G/SPS/W/ 321, will explore the:  
i. Key challenges of approval procedures that impact international trade that Members 
should seek to address;  
ii. Principles of approval procedures that facilitate international trade while meeting the 
importing Memb er's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection;  
iii. Available tools and best practices to enhance the implementation of the obligations of 
the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval procedures; and  
iv. Possible future work of the Committee on this  topic.  
2.2  United States  
2.2.  Comments in relation to Canada's recommendation on control, inspection and approval 
procedures  in paragraph 2.1a : 
a. Similar to the comment above (see paragraph 1.3), we question the value of this type of 
recommendation.   
2.3.  Comments in rel ation to Canada's recommendation on control, inspection and approval 
procedures  in paragraph 2.1b : 
a. While the United States shares Canada 's interest in focusing on approval procedures, if 
there is to be a standing agenda item, Members should be free to emph asize elements of 
interest to them :  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 4 - 
 
  "The Committee should continue discussions and information exchange on the 
topic of control, inspection and approval procedures , with an emphasis on 
approval procedures . To that end, the Committee will establish a formal SPS 
Committee agenda item on Annex C under the Operation and Implementation of 
the SPS Agreement agenda item to enable Members to share information on this 
topic. " 
3  FALL ARMYWORM3 
3.1  Brazil, Paraguay and the United States  
3.1.  Update  of the  recommendations/suggestions  on fall armyworm  contained in G/SPS/W/305  and 
G/SPS/W/317 : 
a. To help mitigate the impact of pests and diseases on trade, Members should continue to 
exchange experiences on efficient, predictable and science -based regulatory approaches 
to SPS matters that increase access to tools, includi ng by smallholder farm families, while 
safeguarding human, animal and plant health and life.  
b. Members are encouraged to consider, where appropriate and requested by another 
Member, providing technical assistance to support efforts by the other Member to imp rove 
its regulatory approach to pre -market approval and inspection systems, with the goal of, 
inter alia , enabling greater access to products that strengthen host plant resistance and 
support integrated pest management strategies.  
c. Members are encouraged to continue discussion of the concepts identified in G/SPS/W/317  
that aim to assist Members, particularly those with capacity constraints , to address SPS 
challenges, in the electronic working group established pursuant to the proposal by Canada 
G/SPS/W/321 . 
4  NATIONAL SPS COORDIN ATION MECHANISMS  
4.1  Indone sia 
4.1.  Indonesia places great importance on the establishment of national SPS committees as a 
coordination and consultation mechanism between relevant SPS and trade authorities in order to 
establish SPS positions and address trade concerns.  
4.2.  Indonesia is in th e process of establishing a national SPS committee which consists of members 
from related ministries with the goal to coordinate national SPS measures.  
4.2  United States  
4.3.  Recommendations/suggestions on national coordination mechanisms , building on the 
recommend ations in the draft Report of the Fifth Review ( G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 ): 
a. Members are encouraged to implement appropriate national coordination mechanisms to 
enable consultation and communication between relevant technical and trade policy 
experts to enable the development of coordinated, science based  SPS positions. Members 
are further encouraged to consider additional ways to strengthen internal coordination on 
SPS matters . 
b. Members should continue to share experiences on their national coordination mechanisms 
and discuss strategies and approaches to improve SPS coordination and  engagement at 
the national level with the aim of strengthening implementation of the SPS Agreement and 
resolving SPS -specific trade concerns . 
 
3 The SPS Committee held a Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm in February 2 019, followed by the first 
meeting of the open -ended working group on fall armyworm.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 5 - 
 
  c. The Committee requests the Secretariat to prepare a collection of resources /good practices  
that can be useful for  Members in implementing their national coordination mechanisms, 
starting with those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination 
with particular attention to the concepts and questions outlined in G/SPS/W/297 , and 
including additional resources as suggested by Members.  
5  NOTIFICATION PROCEDU RES AND TRANSPARENCY  
5.1  Brazil  
5.1.  Recommendations/suggestions on notification procedures and transparency:  
a. Whenever a measure notified to another WTO Committee has current or future  implications 
for the implementation of the SPS Agreement, M embers should also notify it to the SPS 
Committee [within X working days] . 
5.2  Indonesia  
5.2.  Indonesia shares the experience of the usefulness of ePing to speed up and accelerate 
Members' submission of comments on draft SPS measures. Currently, Indonesia has incre ased the 
number of officials registered on ePing (i.e. not only the National Enquiry Point/NEP officer, but all 
persons in charge in related SPS institutions). This means that the NEP  has promoted broader  access 
to ePing alerts  among national stakeholders . Indonesia has now registered  more than ten related 
institutions to receive information from ePing. Indonesia is willing to participate in training activities 
related to online platforms (e.g. ePing) to ensure notification compliance.  
5.3  Japan  
5.3.  Comments in relation to Brazil's recommendation/suggestion on notification procedures and 
transparency in paragraph 5.1a:  
a. The comment period in accordance with paragraph 2.8 of G/SPS/7/Rev.4  should be made 
to comply with at least 60 days, and the period from publication to enforcement for at 
least 6 months in general  (paragraph 4.3 of G/SPS/7/Rev.4) . Therefore, Japan would like 
to propose to add this phrase : "in accordance with relevant provisions of G/SPS/7/Rev.4 ": 
"Whenever a measure notified to another WTO Committee has current or future  
implications for the implementation of the SPS Agreement, Members should also 
notify it to the SPS Committee in accordance with relevant provisions of 
G/SPS/7/Rev.4  [within X working days] ." 
5.4  United States  
5.4.  Comments in relation to Brazil's recommendation/suggestion on notification proce dures and 
transparency in paragraph 5.1a:  
a. The United States notes that the formulation "has current or future implications for the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement" is significantly broader than what is stated in Annex 
B, paragraph 5. We do not support expanding the scope of the Agreement to cover 
measures that "has current or future implications" for SPS  Agreement  implementation. 
Members could have different interpretations of this and it would be very difficult to comply 
with. 
b. If this provision were to  be reformulated in a manner consistent with the scope of  Annex 
B of the SPS  Agreement  per our comment above, the United States could consider a 
formulation that calls for using the national coordinating mechanisms for measures that 
cover both TBT and SPS in their scopes.   
c. In this regard, we note the diversity of approaches across Members in their internal 
mechanisms for coordination of notification obligations across WTO Agreements.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 6 - 
 
  d. In recognition of this diversity, the United States suggests "…within a re asonable time -
frame" or "in a timely manner". Rather than the more inflexible approach of a specific 
number of days, "within X working days ", as proposed by Brazil.  
6  PESTICIDE MRLS  
6.1  United States  
6.1.  Update  of the  recommendations/suggestions on pesticide MRLs  contained in 
G/SPS/W/292 /Rev.44 to be included in the Report of the Fifth Review : 
a. The Committee encourages Members to engage in national discussions of options that 
could enable a more productive Codex MRL system; and in particular, to discuss ways to 
achieve sustainable funding for the joint FAO/WHO scientific bodies. Such national 
discussions of options with respect to the MRL system would take place in the context of 
national resource availability, and could involve consideration of, inter alia , options for 
increasing support to JMPR, including increasing representative expert partici pation and 
other forms of support for the scientific bodies, and options for  encouraging programmes 
to support submission of data from developing countries, especially on minor crops. 
The Committee invites regular updates from Codex on its progress in the evaluation of 
new compounds and of new uses for existing compounds, and on its progress in its periodic 
review of existing compounds.  
b. The Committee encourages Members to provide greater transparency and predictability 
worldwide on MRLs, by inter alia : (1) notifying all proposed changes to their MRLs, 
including changes to MRLs that are based on international standards; and (2) reviewing 
and improving their ability to take the comments of their trading partners meaningfully 
into account when considering propo sed changes on MRLs.  
c. The Committee welcomes efforts by Members and the relevant observer organizations to 
provide regular updates to the Committee on their activities on MRLs, including updates 
on regional initiatives on MRLs. The Committee notes that such  information could provide 
the basis for other Members to take up creative new MRL -related initiatives at the national 
and regional levels to improve harmonization to Codex MRLs , as well as to regional MRLs 
where relevant, in order to facilitate trade.  
d. The Committee invites Members, on a voluntary basis, to explore ways in which their 
domestic regulatory approaches to pesticide registration and use can impact – both 
negatively and positively – the incentives of the private sector to invest in registration a nd 
stewardship of lower -risk alternative pesticides in their countries. The Committee also 
invites Members to evaluate their own minor use needs and to collaborate in global 
data-generation activities.  
7  REGIONALIZATION  
7.1  Brazil  
7.1.  Recommendations/suggestions on regionalization :  
a. Members acknowledge that the work carried out by the OIE related to the official 
recognition of disease statuses of its member countries contributes to the strengthening 
of related disciplines of the SPS Agr eement and to its implementation.  
7.2  Brazil, the European Union and the United States  
7.2.  Recommendations/suggestions on regionalization : 
 
4 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/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 7 - 
 
  a. The Committee recognizes the importance of regionalization to safe trade in agricultural 
products.  We encourage Members to re spond to requests from other Members concerning 
regionalization in a timely manner and to avoid unnecessary requests for information.  
b. Members are encouraged to use actively and systematically the Guidelines to Further the 
Practical Implementation of Articl e 6 ( G/SPS/48 ), including the section on Expedited 
Process (Section IV).  
c. With a view to increasing transparency, Members are encouraged to share: their 
experiences in developing and strengthening their frameworks for regionalization; and 
information on their procedures and processes related to regionalization, including on how 
another Member may request  recognition of pest - or disease -free areas.  
d. Under the Committee 's agenda item for regionalization, Members are encouraged to share 
experiences on: securing another Member 's recognition of regional conditions with respect 
to specific plant pests or animal diseases; and recognizing regional conditions of another 
Member with respect to specific plant pests or animal diseases.  
e. Members appreciate the information shared by OIE and IPPC on their activities in support 
of regionalization. Memb ers welcome additional information on case studies, the 
Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathways, and Observatory projects, and on 
other activities aimed at improving understanding and implementation of OIE and IPPC 
standards.  
f. The Committee should  further discuss the issues related to Article 6, including the 
Committee Guidelines, through future thematic sessions, informal meetings or working 
groups, as appropriate.  
7.3  Japan  
7.3.  Comments in relation to Brazil's recommendation/suggestion on regionalization  in paragraph 
7.1a:  
a. Japan understands that Brazil's  proposal for the official recognition of disease statuses by 
the OIE has been withdrawn by Brazil, has not been discussed among WTO members, and 
has not reached consensus. Japan would like to submit the a mendment to add the phrase 
"and IPPC", because both the OIE Code and ISPM are important:  
"Members acknowledge that the work carried out by the OIE  and IPPC  related to 
the official recognition of disease statuses of its member countries  contributes to 
the strengthening of related disciplines of the SPS Agreement and to its 
implementation. " 
7.4  United States  
7.4.  Comments in relation to Brazil's recommendation/suggestion on regionalization  in paragraph 
7.1a: 
a. As currently constructed, this recommen dation could be construed to imply that OIE would 
contribute to a legal interpretation of the SPS Agreement. We do not support such an 
implication.   
b. We believe the recommendations as put forward by Brazil, the E uropean Union  and the 
United States  in sectio n 7.2 are sufficient and reflect the discussions in the Committee.  
c. If Brazil wants to pursue an additional recommendation on regionalization, we suggest 
formulating the recommendation taking into consideration the following elements:  
▪ Would a recognition by "the Committee" be preferable?  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 8 - 
 
  ▪ Would it be useful to recognize that the OIE 's work to provide expertise in the control 
of animal diseases to Members and to improve the legal framework, competency and 
resources of national veterinary services  contributes to Members ' ability to enhance 
implementation of the SPS Agreement?  
▪ Also, would there be a parallel construction for the IPPC?  Seems better to include the 
contribution of both ISSB 's work to implementation of the SPS Agreement.  
d. However, we bel ieve that the recommendation  in paragraph  7.2e addresses these 
elements.  
7.5.  Comments in relation to the joint recommendations/suggestions  by Brazil, the European Union 
and the United States  on regionalization in paragraph 7.2f:  
a. Delete "the" from the sentence  as indicated below . Otherwise it appears to suggest only a 
subset of issues:  
"The Committee should further discuss the issues related to Article 6, including 
the Committee Guidelines, through future thematic sessions, informal meetings 
or working groups, a s appropriate."  
8  GENERAL COMMENTS  
8.1  United States  
8.1.  The United States notes that some proposals set "the Committee" as the noun, and some set 
"Members" as the noun  - e.g. as the subject of the verb or action being recommended. It would be 
useful to come to a sh ared understanding of when one formulation is preferred to the other. 
We should also consider consistency in approaches taken in prior reviews, where appropriate.  
SECTION  2 - RECOMMENDATIONS SUB MITTED AFTER THE JUL Y 2019 SPS COMMITTEE  
MEETING  
The following  recommendations /suggestions were compiled from the proposals submitted under the 
Fifth Review, and Members' written inputs in response to the Chairperson's request at the July 2019 
SPS Committee meeting  and the September 2019 consultations .5 These 
recommendations/suggestions  were taken into account in the drafting of the revised draft report 
(G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 ) circulated on 21 October 2019.  
These recommendations should be read in conjunction with the summary of the informal SPS 
Committee meetings on the Fifth Review ( JOB/SPS/2/Rev.4 ), which summarize Members' reactions 
to submitted proposals.  
In some cases, the recommendations were slightly edited in order to provide additional context 
contained in other sections of the submitted proposals.  
9  APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF  PROTECTION, RISK AS SESSMENT AND SCIENCE  
9.1  Brazil  
9.1.  Recommendations /suggestions  as conta ined in G/SPS/W/308 : 
a. In order to develop and promote the adoption of science -based procedures for the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement, Brazil proposes the following:  
 
5 Members were invited to review th e recommendations and provide comments at the informal 
consultations on 25 September 2019, and/or in writing to the Secretariat ( SPSCommittee@wto.org ) by 
4 October 2019.  This deadline was subsequently extended to  10 October 2019.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 9 - 
 
  i. Members should be urged to recognize that the risk assessment, as regulated under 
Article 5.1, is the main cri teria and means by which scientific 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 the ir views on the 
insufficiency 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 within a reasonabl e period 
of time.  
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 applicat ion of provisional 
measures.  
9.2  Canada  
9.2.  Recommendations/suggestions  on ALOP, risk assessment and science:  
a. The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited to inform the Committee of their 
standards, guidelines, and recommendation or other relevant documen ts that they have 
developed regarding the consideration of insufficient scientific evidence.  
b. The Committee should continue to discuss the topic of risk and consider next steps for 
discussion based on the information provided by the ISSBs.  
9.3  Ecuador  
9.3.  Ecuador s upports the views expressed by Brazil in document G/SPS/W/308 . It is vital that 
Members uphold the notion that risk assessment is fundamental for the implementation of SPS 
measures and that such measures must be science -based in order to mitigate identified risks without 
creating unnecessa ry barriers to trade. Ecuador is willing to continue to engage in dialogue on this 
matter with a view to ensuring that decisions are made on the basis of scientific evidence and 
existing international parameters.  
9.4  Turkey  
9.4.  Regarding Brazil's proposal ( G/SPS/W/308 ) on risk assessment and appropriate level of 
protection, Turkey consi ders Article 5 - Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate 
Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection of the SPS Agreement to be quite clear and enough. 
Therefore, Turkey does not see any need to urge countries to recognize the same object ives given 
there and adding a requirement to notifications given under paragraph 2.1(b) of Brazil's proposal 
which will create an additional burden in terms of both administrative work and time.  
10  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDU RES (ANNEX C)  
10.1  Canada  
10.1.   Recommendation/suggestion  on approval procedures as contained in G/SPS/W/310 : 
a. Canada proposes that a thematic session on approval procedures be held in November 
2019 as part of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on 
the Application  of SPS Measures. As part of a thematic session on approval procedures, 
Members, International Standard Setting Bodies (ISSBs) and other organizations that have 
valuable perspectives in this area could be invited to share experiences, best practices, 
devel opments as well as relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations of ongoing 
or potential work relevant to approval procedures.6 
 
6 A Thematic Session on Approval Procedures will be held on 5 November 2019. In addition, a Workshop 
on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures was held in July 2018.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 10 - 
 
  10.2  Turkey  
10.2.   Turkey would like to express its willingness to share its experiences on the subject.  
11  EQUIVALENCE7 
11.1  Australia  
11.1.   Recommendations/suggestions on equivalence  as contained in G/SPS/W/299 : 
a. Within the framework of the Fifth Review, the SPS Committee would explore the 
impediments to the application of the concept and practices of equivalence to manage SPS 
risks in trade. Where it would assist M embers to expand their use of equivalence to facilitate 
safe trade, the SPS Committee could expand on existing guidance on recognition of 
equivalence in relation to systems approaches for achieving equivalence in achieving the 
importing Members' appropriat e level of protection of plant, animal and human health while 
permitting trade to begin, continue or resume.  
b. The Review would expand on guidance provided to Members in the Decision on the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of S anitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures specifically in relation to the determination of equivalence of a 
systems approach.8 
c. The Review would draw on existing and ongoing work of the ISSBs, in relation to systems 
approaches that may be used in determining if a systems approach could be considered as 
equivalent to existing measures and achieve the importing Member's appropriate level of 
protection.  
11.2  Brazil  
11.2.   Recommendations/suggestions  on equivalence as contained in G/SPS/W/301 : 
a. To improve the implementation of Article 4, Members should recognize the importance of 
the Decision  (G/SPS/19/Rev.2 ), commit to follow its provisions and reinforce the 
commitment of their countries to enter into consultations when requested, following 
Article  4.2 and the procedures described in the Decision itself.  
11.3  Canada  
11.3.   Recommendations/suggestions  on equivalence as contained in G/SPS/W/302/Rev.1 : 
a. Canada wo uld like to propose, for the Committee's consideration, a workshop or thematic 
session on equivalence as part of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of 
the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  
11.4.   Recommendation s/suggestions  on equivalence proposed in the July 2019 informal SPS 
Committee meeting : 
a. The Committee should continue discussions and information exchange on the topic of 
equivalence through the existing agenda item and in -depth discussion during future 
thematic sessions, informal meetings, and working groups as appropriate.  
b. Members are encouraged to coordinate with their Codex, OIE, and IPPC representatives 
and experts to highlight the importance of understanding trade impacts during the 
development and dis cussions of international standards, guidelines, and recommendations 
on the issue of equivalence.  
 
7 The SPS Committee held a two -part Thematic Session on Equivalence  in October 2018 and 
February  2019. 
8 Australia subsequently noted that while there might still be a need to review the existing guidance, 
especially in relation to systems approaches, it also recognized that Members did not have an appetite to do so 
(para graph 1.3(o) of JOB/SPS/2/Rev.3 ). G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 11 - 
 
  11.4  Ecuador  
11.5.   For Ecuador, enhancing dialogue on the principle of equivalence is essential given that these 
issues are of interest when conducting trade negotiation s. In this respect, it should be noted that 
Ecuador has aligned itself with the international practices established in the Codex and will continue 
its efforts in this area.  
12  FALL ARMYWORM9 
12.1  Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay  
12.1.   Recommendations/suggestions  on fall armyworm as contained in G/SPS/W/305 : 
a. We recommend that interested Members of the Committee form a working group for the 
purpose of undertaking the activities outlined in sections 5 and 6 of this paper. The working 
group could, at an appropriat e time, provide a report on its activities to the Committee.  
i. We recommend that the working group examine, identify, and discuss examples of the 
effective use by Members of these principles to enable greater access to safe tools and 
technologies to manage F AW in Africa. The working group could also determine if any 
of these principles have not been employed in the FAW context as well as the reasons 
why, and how the principle could be relevant in the future.  
ii. We recommend that the working group collect and compile information and 
experiences resulting from collaboration in these areas. The compilation could serve 
as a resource for national and regional authorities with capacity or expertise 
constraints in the development of their own systems and strategies. The compilation 
would obviously not affect Members' rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
iii. Brazil, Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay believe there is 
a compelling need to enable greater access to safe tools and technologie s in the quest 
for safer and more sustainable agriculture and to prevent food insecurity. 
We recommend  that interested Members of the Committee form a working group to 
develop these documents outlined in sections  5 and 6 of this paper for consideration 
by the Committee under the Fifth Review.  
12.2  Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay and the United States  
12.2.   Recommendations/suggestions  as contained in G/SPS/W/317 : 
a. Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay and the United States propose that the concepts identified below 
could productively be a subject of further Committee discu ssion in connection with FAW 
and could be assembled into a Committee document, connected to the Fifth Review, on 
approaches to streamline regulatory processes with respect to FAW. We recognize these 
concepts can be helpful in addressing other SPS challenge s as well, particularly for 
authorities facing capacity constraints. Such a document could assist Members in 
strengthening implementation of Article 9 of the SPS Agreement.  
i. The concepts are: (i) data portability; (ii) common application dossiers; (iii) joi nt 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.  
12.3  India  
12.3.   The following are India's comments on the draft recommendations/suggestions in document 
G/SPS/W/318  regarding paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 about fall armyworm (FAW):  
 
9 The SPS Committee held a Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm in February 2019 , followed by the first 
meeting of the open -ended working group on fall armyworm.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 12 - 
 
  a. We recognize the importance of devising ways and means to tackle fall armyworm (FAW). 
We are also committed to building stakeholder 's capacities  through mutual cooperation 
and support. However, we feel that further deliberations are required to obtain clarity on 
some of the concepts being proposed in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2. We note that market 
access to products, tools, and technologies will be go verned by regulations and laws in 
force in each Member 's territory. We request the proponents to elaborate upon the 
following:  
i. Are the concepts being proposed to address the SPS challenges relating to FAW 
voluntary in nature or are they to be adhered to in  a prescriptive manner?  
ii. Is the list of concepts exhaustive or is it merely an indicative/inclusive one?  
iii. With respect to the following:  
1) Data portability;  
2) Common application dossiers;  
3) Joint risk assessments;  
4) Familiarity  
5) History of safe use; and  
6) Emergency use authorization.  
What is the legal basis for these concepts under the SPS Agreement? Do the concepts 
adhere to the requirements specified under the SPS Agreement or are some of them 
SPS-plus? 
13  NATIONAL SPS COORDIN ATION MECHANISMS  
13.1  Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, 
Nigeria, the United States and Zambia  
13.1.   Recommendations/suggestions  on national SPS committees  as contained in G/SPS/W/297 : 
a. We propose that the SPS Committee examine the  following matters, as well as others of 
interest t o Members, through an exchange of experiences in a thematic session or workshop 
to be held in late 2018 or early 2019 :10 
i. The mechanism for establishment and composition of national SPS committees;  
ii. The role of the private sector in advising or providing inpu t to national SPS committees;  
iii. The procedures for developing national SPS strategies and positions in regional and 
international organizations;  
iv. Use of established information exchange mechanisms; and  
v. Role of national SPS committees in advocacy.  
b. Following th e Committee's examination of these matters, we would welcome other 
Members' views as to whether a "good practices" document would be useful to Members.  
In our view, a collection of good practices could assist developing countries, recently 
acceded Members and countries seeking to accede to the WTO. We are interested in others' 
views.  
13.2  Canada  
13.2.   Recommendation/suggestion on national SPS coordination mechanisms:  
 
10 A joint Workshop on Transparency and Coordination was held on 15 -16 July 2019.  G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 13 - 
 
  a. Members are encouraged to implement appropriate national coordination mechanisms to 
enable consultation and communication between relevant technical and trade policy experts 
to enable the development of coordinated SPS positions.  
14  NOTIFICATION PROCEDU RES AND TRANSPARENCY  
14.1  Brazil  
14.1.   Recommendations/suggestions  on notification procedures and transparen cy as contained in 
G/SPS/W/300 : 
a. Without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members under other committees, and 
for the purpose of enhancing predictability and transparency in situations where a Member 
considers it is difficult to establish or foresee whether a draft technical reg ulation may fall 
under the SPS and/or the TBT Agreement, Brazil understands that Members should notify 
simultaneously the measure in both Committees in accordance with the recommended 
procedures for implementing the transparency obligations of the SPS Agre ement set forth 
on G/SPS/7/Rev .4. 
b. In line with the above, and taking into account the challenges arising from defining whether 
a measure falls within the scope of one or both agreements, Brazil proposes to further 
address this cross -cutting issue through thematic sessions and workshops , with a view to 
developing practical guidelines for notifications.11 
14.2  Canada  
14.2.   Recommendations/suggestions  on notification procedures/transparency:  
a. Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notification when a 
measure has been notified  to another Committee.  
b. The Secretariat is requested to update the SPS notification templates to include a new 
section 'related notifications'. The 'related notifications' section would be completed by 
Members when a SPS measure is notified to other Committ ees or when there are other 
related notifications.  
14.3  Ecuador  
14.3.   In this regard, it should be emphasized that the ePing system has been extremely useful for 
the internal analysis of draft regulations and for sending comments. Ecuador is constantly analy sing 
notifications received via the ePing platform, thanks to the coordinated efforts of the Permanent 
Mission to the WTO, the Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investment and Fisheries, and 
agencies directly involved in the application of sanitary and  phytosanitary measures.  
14.4.   Nevertheless, Ecuador considers it important to point out that even though Members submit 
notifications in the official WTO languages (English, Spanish or French), the notified regulations 
themselves are often drafted in the langua ge of the notifying country, which makes it difficult to 
properly understand not only their scope but their potential impact on Ecuador's exportable supply. 
We therefore suggest looking at ways of facilitating access to English, Spanish or French translati ons 
of notified regulations.  
 
11 A joint Workshop  on Transparency and Coordination was held on 15 -16 July 2019.  
 G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 14 - 
 
  15  PESTICIDE MRLS  
15.1  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican 
Republic, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the 
United States and Uruguay  
15.1.   Recommendations/suggestions  on pesticide MRLs  as contained in G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 :12 
a. We believe the Committee should encourage Members, as a matter of some urgency, to 
approach their Codex representatives to highlight the trade issues raised during discussions 
on MRLs at the SPS  Committee and to participate actively in their inter -ministerial 
discussions on MRL issues. Members should encourage national discussions of options that 
could enable a more productive Codex MRL system; and in particular, to hasten discussions 
on ways to achieve sustainable funding for the scientific bodies. Such discussions would 
take place in the context of national resource availability, and could include, inter alia , 
options for increasing support to JMPR, increasing representative expert participation  and 
other forms of support for the scientific bodies as well as encouraging programmes to 
support submission of data from developing countries especially on minor crops. The 
Committee should also invite regular updates from Codex on its progress in the ev aluation 
of new compounds and new uses.  
b. We believe the SPS Committee should consider ways for WTO Members to provide greater 
transparency and predictability worldwide on MRLs by urging Members to: (1) notify all 
proposed changes to their MRLs, including ch anges to MRLs that are based on international 
standards; and (2) review and improve their ability to take the comments of their trading 
partners meaningfully into account when considering proposed changes on MRLs.  
c. We believe the Committee should welcome ef forts by Members of these regional initiatives 
and the relevant observer organizations to provide regular updates to the Committee on 
their harmonization and other collaborative activities on MRLs. Such information could 
provide the basis for other Members  to take up creative new MRL -related initiatives at the 
national and regional levels to improve harmonization to Codex MRLs as well as to regional 
MRLs where relevant, in order to facilitate trade.  
d. We believe the SPS Committee should invite Members, on a v oluntary basis, to explore 
ways in which their domestic regulatory approaches to pesticide registration and use can 
impact – both negatively and positively – the incentives of the private sector to invest in 
registration and stewardship of lower -risk alter native pesticides in their countries. The SPS 
Committee should also invite Members to evaluate their own minor use needs and to 
collaborate in global data generation activities.  
e. We recommend the Committee include all of the recommendations put forward in t his paper 
in its Report of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement.  
15.2  Ecuador  
15.2.   Ecuador supports the recommendations set out in document G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 . The work 
of the JMPR needs to be strengthened in order to ensure a timely response to issues  that arise 
regarding the setting of MRLs. In Ecuador's view, it is vital that all Members be aligned with the 
principles established in the SPS Agreement and base their measures on the international decisions 
on pesticide MRLs adopted by the Codex Committ ee on Pesticide Residues.  
15.3  Turkey  
15.3.   It is considered that the countries setting more restrictive measures on MRLs than the 
international standards should share their risk assessments, on which these more restrictive 
 
12 Ministers of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala,  
Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the United States and Uruguay sig ned a joint 
statement supporting the recommendations contained in this submission. See WT/MIN(17)/52 . G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 15 - 
 
  measures are based, with the international standard -setting organizations. Hence, a common ground 
would be established to facilitate risk assessment procedures.  
16  REGIONALIZATION  
16.1.   Recommendations/suggestions on regionalization were submitted in earlier proposals by 
Brazil ( G/SPS/W/307 ), the European Union ( G/SPS/W/298 ) and the United States ( G/SPS/W/303 ). 
However, these proponents subsequently submitted a joint paper ( G/SPS/W/311 ) in order to gather 
responses from Members, as well as IPPC and OIE, on a set of questions to info rm further discussions 
on the topic.  
16.1  Turkey  
16.2.   Regarding recognition of regionalization and pest and disease -free zones, recommendations 
of international organizations and the requirements of exporting country could be different. In 
addition, importing countr ies sometimes require implementation of their own procedures on 
recognition of pest and disease -free zones although they are defined in accordance with the 
international standards and notified to trading partner countries through SPS notifications.  
16.3.   Turkey has completed its regionalization studies for its zones free of avian influenza in line 
with OIE recommendations, and has published a self -declaration of freedom from the disease 
through OIE and SPS notifications. However, Turkey still faces some problems regarding recognition 
of its free status of avian influenza with countries.  
16.4.   Besides, some exporting countries do not recognize the disease -free status of regions or zones 
within a country and request disease -free status of the entire country.  
16.5.   In this respe ct, Turkey welcomes the proposal to review the Committee's Guidelines on 
implementation of Article 6 with the contributions of the international organizations, such as OIE 
and IPPC, as well as organizing trainings with regards to related subjects.  
16.6.   It is be neficial to encourage countries to announce their regionalization efforts related to 
animal diseases, which may affect trade during peace time. This can be done through SPS 
notifications, in addition to self -declarations to OIE, as well as by identifying r egions to impose import 
restrictions which therefore does not affect the whole country, in case of an outbreak.  
17  ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDRESSIN G SPECIFIC TRADE CON CERNS  
17.1  South Africa  
17.1.   Recommendations/suggestions on the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE as contained in 
G/SPS/W/304/Add.1 . 
a. South Africa would like to propose that the Secretariat write to the ISSBs requesting them 
to implement recommendation 8 of the workshop :13 
i. To analy se the STCs and to identify those which could have been addre ssed by the use 
of existing international standards. The relevant Sister Organization will then submit a 
report to the Secretariat;  
ii. Upon receipt of this report from each of the three Sisters, it is proposed that the 
Secretariat share the report with the Co mmittee and organize a workshop wherein 
each of the three Sisters will share its analysis of the identified STC(s).  
 
13 Recommendation 8  of the 2009 workshop : Requesting the three Sisters to analy se 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 intern ational standards  (Report of the 2009 workshop, G/SPS/R/57 ). G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3  
 
- 16 - 
 
  17.2  Codex, IPPC and OIE  
17.2.   Recommendation/suggestion  as contained in G/SPS/W/314 : 
a. Members are encouraged to develop their understanding of the various standards adopted 
by Codex, IPPC and OIE in order to facilitate their implementation.  
18  THIRD PARTY ASSURANC E SCHEMES  
18.1  Belize  
18.1.   Recommendation /suggestion  on voluntary third -party assurance schemes as contained in 
G/SPS/W/316 :14 
a. "In view of the ongo ing 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, the 
Committee should ho ld a thematic session on voluntary third -party assurance 
programmes."  
__________  
 
14 The recommen dation in the original proposal referred to "a thematic session or workshop", however 
in the July 2019 SPS Committee meeting, Belize informed the Committee that the four areas indicated in its 
proposal would  be best covered in a one -day thematic session, a s opposed to a two -day workshop. The 
Committee agreed in the July 2019 SPS Committee meeting to include this recommendation in the revised 
draft Report of the Fifth Review.