G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
8 May 202 4 
(24-3664) Page: 1/59 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
SIXTH  REVIEW  OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES  
DRAFT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT  
Note by the Secretariat1 
INTRODUCTION  
Article 12.7 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(the SPS Agreement ) provides that " [t]he Committee shall review the operation and implementation 
of this Agreement three years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement, and thereafter 
as the  need arises ." A first review was completed in March 1999.2 At the Fourth Ministerial 
Conference, Ministers instructed the Committee to review the operation and implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  at least once every four years.3 The Fifth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement  (the Fifth Review)  was completed , and the corresponding 
report adopted  ad referendum  in July 20 20.4 
At its November 2023  meeting, the Committee adopted a proposed process to undertake 
the Sixth Review  of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement  (the Sixth Review )5, 
which includes the preparation of this background document for the Committee's consideration.  
This background document  provides information regarding the Committee 's main areas of work since 
the Fifth Review, covering the period  from 1 January 2020  to 31 December 2023 .6 For ease of 
reference, recommendations from the Fifth Review have been included in the relevant sections. 
Members' proposals introduced in the cont ext of the Sixth Review  in 2024 have also been included 
for reference.7 
The fol lowing topics are covered:  
• Monitoring the Use of International Standards (Articles 3.5 and 12.4) ; 
• Equivalence (Article 4) ; 
• Risk Analysis (Article 5) ; 
• Consistency (Article 5.5) ; 
• Regionalization (Article 6) ; 
• Transparency (Article 7 and A nnex B) ; 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility  and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/SPS/12 . 
3 WT/MIN(01)/17 . 
4 G/SPS/6 4 and G/SPS/64/Add.1 . 
5 G/SPS/W/ 346. 
6 Unless otherwise indicated.  
7 All documents related to the Sixth Review are available  here. This includes : all proposals and 
documents submitted by Members , an overview of issues/papers/proposals received ( latest revision of 
document G/SPS/GEN/2194 ); an overview of thematic sessions and  workshop submitted by Members ( latest 
revision of document  RD/SPS/244 ); the Committee's chairperson's report on the Sixth Review discussions held 
in the informal Committee meeting of March 2024 ( JOB/SPS/36 ); and the list of documents the Committee had 
agreed t o review as part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement  (RD/SPS/245 ). G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 2 - 
 
  • Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures (Article 8 and Annex C) ; 
• Technical Assistance and Training Activities (Article 9) ; 
• Special and Differential Treatment (Article 10) ; 
• Dispute Settl ement (Article 11) ; 
• Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) (Articles 12.1 -12.2) ; 
• Cooperation with the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), the World Organisation for 
Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE), and the Secretariat of the International Plant 
Protection Convention (IPPC) ; 
• MC12 SPS Declaration and Related Work Programme ; 
• Other topics:  
o Antimicrobia l Resistance (AMR) ; 
o COVID -19 and SPS Issues ; 
o Fall Armyworm ; 
o Improving the Functioning of the Committee ; 
o Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for Plant Protection Products ; 
o National SPS  Coordination Mechanisms ; 
o New Tools and Technologies ; 
o Organizations with Observer Status; 
o SPS@25 ; and 
o Voluntary Third-Party Assurance Schemes . 
The list of SPS -related documents circulated between January 2020 and December 2023 is available 
here. Appendix  A provides an overview of Committee thematic sessions and workshops in 
January  2020 – March 202 4, Appendix  B contains an overview of Committee side events in 
January  2020 – March  2024, and Appendix  C provides information about SPS -related dispute s. 
More information on the Committee's activities can be found in the summary reports prepared by 
the Secretariat following each Committee meeting8 as well as in the yearly reports prepared by the 
Chairperson of the Committee for consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG).9 
 
 
8 The summary reports of Committee meetings held in 2020-23 are available here. 
9 The Chair's reports  to the CTG  submitted in 2020-23 are available here. G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Table of contents  
Page 
1   MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 AND 12.4)  .. 5 
1.1   New Zealand's Proposals regarding the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
1.2   Thematic Session on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization  ... 7 
1.3   Codex, WOAH and IPPC Observatory Projects  ................................ ................................ . 7 
2   EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE 4)  ................................ ................................ .........................  7 
3   RISK ANALYSIS (ARTICLE 5)  ................................ ................................ ......................  8 
4   CONSISTENCY (ARTICLE 5.5)  ................................ ................................ ....................  10 
5   REGIONALIZATION (ARTICLE 6)  ................................ ................................ ...............  11 
5.1   African  Swine  Fever (ASF)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 13 
5.2   Highly Pathogenic Avian I nfluenza (HPAI)  ................................ ................................ ......14 
6   TRANSPARENCY (ARTICLE 7 AND ANNEX B)  ................................ .............................  14 
6.1   Online Systems  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 15 
6.1.1    ePing SPS&TBT Platform  ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 
6.1.2    eAgenda  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 15 
6.1.3    Trade Concerns Database  ................................ ................................ ......................... 16 
6.1.4    E-Delegate  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 16 
6.2   "Technical Revision" of Document G/SPS/7/Rev.5  ................................ ........................... 16 
6.3   Update on the Implementation of Transparency Provisions  ................................ .............. 17 
7   CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (ARTICLE 8 AND ANNEX C)  .. 18 
8   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES (ARTICLE 9)  ..........................  20 
8.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................... 20 
8.2   WTO SPS Activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....22 
8.3   The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  ................................ ................... 25 
9   SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT (ARTICLE 10)  ................................ ..........  26 
10   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (ARTICLE 11)  ................................ ................................ ...... 27 
11   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (STCS) (ARTICLES 12.1 -12.2)  ................................ .... 28 
12   AD HOC  CONSULTATIONS (ARTICLE 12.2)  ................................ ..............................  31 
13   COOPERATION WITH CODEX, WOAH, AND THE IPPC (ARTICLE 12.3)  .....................  32 
14   MC12 SPS DECLARATION AND RELATED WORK PROGRAMME  ................................ .. 33 
15   OTHER TOPICS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  35 
15.1   Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)  ................................ ................................ .................. 35 
15.2   COVID -19 and SPS Issues  ................................ ................................ ......................... 36 
15.3   Fall Armyworm  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 38 
15.4   Improving the Functioning of the Committee  ................................ ................................ 38 
15.5   Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for Plant Protection Products  ................................ ........ 39 
15.6   National SPS Coordination Mechanisms  ................................ ................................ .......42 
15.7   New Tools and Technologies  ................................ ................................ ....................... 42 G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 4 - 
 
  15.8   Organizations with Observer Status  ................................ ................................ ............ 44 
15.8.1    Information from Observer Organizations  ................................ ................................ .44 
15.8.2    New Requests for Observer Status  ................................ ................................ ........... 44 
15.8.3    Pending Requests ................................ ................................ ................................ ...45 
15.9   SPS@25  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 45 
15.10    Voluntary  Third-Party Assurance Schemes  ................................ ................................ .46 
APPENDIX A – OVERVIEW OF COMMITTEE THEMATIC SESSIONS AND WORKSHOPS IN 
JANUARY 2020 – MARCH 2024  ................................ ................................ .......................  47 
APPENDIX B – OVERVIEW OF COMMITTEE SIDE EVENTS 
IN JANUA RY 2020  – MARCH  2024  ................................ ................................ ..................  48 
APPENDIX C – WTO DISPUTES INVOKING THE SPS  AGREEMENT  ................................ ... 49 G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 AND 12.4)  
1.1.  Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement  require the Committee to develop a procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines 
and recommendations. The Committee initially adopted a monitori ng procedure in 1997, which was 
revised in November 2004.10 In June 2006, the Committee decided to extend this procedure 
indefinitely and review its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS  Agreeme nt. 
1.2.  "Monitoring of the use of international standards " is a standing item on the agenda of regular 
Committee meetings and , in accordance with the agreed procedure, annual reports were produced 
relating to the process of monitoring international harmonizati on. The Secretariat has issued f our 
reports in 2020-23.11 
1.3.  In 2020, several new issues were raised under this agenda item : (i) the United  States ' concerns 
regarding Codex Maximum Residue Limits and Risk Management Recommendations for Residues of 
Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CX/MRL 2 -2018)12, supported by Canada and Paraguay ; 
(ii) the United  States ' concerns regarding Codex Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety 
Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant -DNA Plants (CAC/GL 45 -2003)13, supported by 
Argentina, Canada, and Paraguay; (ii i) Türkiye's concerns regarding Newcastle disease restrictions 
not consistent with WOAH  international standard s; and (i v) Peru's concerns regarding restrictions 
on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the la ck of an international standard. New issues 
were also raised in 2022: (i) Brazil's concerns regarding the application and consideration of norms 
from relevant international organizations; (ii) Canada's update on response to highly pathogenic 
avian influenz a (HPAI) and the importance of WOAH guidelines; and (iii) Canada's update on its 
WOAH negligible risk status for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) (a concern that was again 
discussed in 2023).  
1.4.  In 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 , the European  Union  reiterat ed several previously raised 
issues , namely, concerns regarding African  Swine  Fever  (ASF)  restrictions and concerns regarding 
HPAI restrictions , which it considered not consistent with WOAH international standard s. 
1.1  New Zealand's Proposal s regarding the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization14 
1.5.  In 2020, New Zealand presented a proposal regarding the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization , which highlighted some of the initiatives being undert aken by the 
international  standard setting bodies ( ISSBs ) to better understand the uptake and use of their 
standards and related texts . New Zealand 's proposal aimed at promoting discussion on what further 
role the Committee could play in assisting the ISSB s in monitoring the use of their international 
standards.  
1.6.  In March 2021, Members discussed New Zealand's initiatives to improve the monitoring 
process , which included: (i) organizing a thematic session on international harmonization;  
(ii) reviewing the for mat and content of the notification template s; (iii) Members' voluntary 
statements to the Committee on the use of ISSB standards; and (iv) statements from the ISSBs on 
their initiatives related to monitoring the use of standards and related texts. Members supported 
New Zealand's proposal, noting the timeliness of this review and underscoring the significance of 
harmonization , and drew attention to the ISSB's wor k on the topic and the need to avoid overlaps. 
The ISSBs welcomed New Zealand's proposal, noting its timely and complementary nature to work 
being undertaken in their respective bodies. Underscoring the difficulties to obtain data on the use 
of standards, WOAH referred to its observatory project,  Codex announced its goal "Increase impact 
 
10 G/SPS/11/Rev.1 . 
11 G/SPS/GEN/1776  (covering the June and November 2019 meetings), G/SPS/GEN/1909  (covering 
June 2020, November 2020, and March 2021 Committee meetings), G/SPS/GEN/2022  (covering the July 2021, 
November 2021, and March 2022 Committee meetings), an d G/SPS/GEN/2126  (covering the June 2022, 
November 2022, and March 2023 Committee meetings).  
12 G/SPS/GEN/1801/Rev.1 . 
13 G/SPS/GEN/1864 . 
14 G/SPS/GEN /1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877 , G/SPS/GEN/1915  and G/SPS/GEN/1998 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 6 - 
 
  through the recognition and use of Codex standards" , and th e IPPC provided information on its 
Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS) and other monitoring/evaluatio n work.  
1.7.  Several Members , as well as the ISSBs,  expressed support for a thematic session on 
international harmonization , which  could pave the way for future work . The ISSBs  hoped that the 
thematic session event could offer an opportunity to discuss how the ISSB's different texts, 
i.e. standards, guidelines, recommendations, or codes of practice, were considered in Members' 
legislation and under the SPS Agreement . The thematic session on international harmonization  was 
held in November 2021 (see section 1.2   below) . 
1.8.  Regarding  the other initiatives , some Members indicated support to reviewing the notification 
template (in consultation w ith the ISSBs) . Other Members asked about the feasibility and resource 
implication of the review/analysis of STCs. Some Members also expressed support for th e suggestion 
regarding Members' voluntary statements to the Committee on the use of ISSB standards . 
Questions  were raised on the types of exchanges envisioned  with the ISSBs  and the platform for 
their operationalization , e.g. whether these reports would be separate from the information provided 
under the existing agenda item on "Information fr om Codex, IPPC and WOAH on relevant activities", 
in light of potential duplications and additional burdens . Queries were also raised in relation to the 
feasibility and the resource implications of the request to review  the list of international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations and using the data to inform future proposals on monitoring. 
Several Members indicated their willingness to continue the discussions and highlighted the  need for 
the discussions to include Members, the Secretariat , and the IS SBs. 
1.9.  In March 2022, the United  States  noted the interest in improving the capacity of  the ISSBs to 
monitor the use of their standards but was concerned that such shift in focus would undermine the 
main role of these organizations . The United  States  recommended using the existing processes and 
agenda items of the Committee to monitor the use of international standards to submit examples of 
problems related to the use or non -use of relevant international standards.  
1.10.   Also in March  2022, t he Secretariat p rovided an overview of past Committee efforts to monitor 
the use of international standards and the process of international harmonization . The Procedure to 
Monitor the Process of International Harmonization  had been rarely used  as initially intended . 
The Secretariat noted that it prepared annual reports for Members' consideration and also brought 
them to the attention of the ISSBs. However, the Secretariat no longer circulated lists of issues 
identified with standards for other Members to comment on becaus e no such issues had been 
identified.  Following the Secretariat's presentation, New Zealand explained  that the impetus for  its 
proposal was related to recent developments and renewed interest by the ISSBs to better understand 
Members' use of their standard s, and the impact and benefits. New Zealand had suggested several 
areas to improve understanding of the international harmonization process and proposed a working 
group to facilitate a detailed examination of the issues . While several Members expressed ove rall 
support for New Zealand's proposals, further clarification was sought on the scope, function, and 
reasons for a new working group . Noting the existence of a working group on approval procedures, 
Members encouraged further reflection on the reasons for  creating a new group and its intended 
outcomes . The IPPC and WOAH  underscored the importance of examining how standards were being 
implemented and the challenge s faced and expressed their willingness to participate in these 
discussions.  
1.11.   In June 2022 , New  Zealand  noted that the topic was not seen as a priority for Members  at 
that time  and indicated that  it did not inten d to make further proposals on this matter . 
New Zealand  invited the Secretariat to encourage the ISSBs to provide brief reports under the 
agenda item on harmonization in future Committee meetings. Chile considered that the Procedure 
to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization was a commi tment in the SPS Agreement  that 
could be addressed as part of the MC12 SPS  Declaration or in the Sixth Review . The Chairperson 
invited the Secretariat to consult with the ISSBs on this matter.  
1.12.   In the context of the Sixth Review , New Zealand submitted a pro posal for discussion on the 
Procedure  to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization.15 
 
15 G/SPS/W/348 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.2  Thematic Session on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International 
Harmonization  
1.13.   The Thematic Session on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of Internati onal Harmonization 
took place in November  202116, providing  an opportunity for Members to exchange views and review 
progress on international harmonization , learn about the efforts by the ISSBs,  better understand 
how their standards and related texts are used , and hear from regional and national bodies . 
The Secretariat first provided an overview of the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement  and other 
relevant work undertaken by the SPS Committee  and other WTO bodies.  Subsequently, the relevant 
ISSBs presented on their initiatives to monitor the implementation of their standards, which were at 
various stages of development. This session generated discussion on the financial sustainability of 
the various monitoring mechanisms being developed, the  "relev ance" of standards leading to varying 
levels of implementation across countries, data accessibility and reliability, non -duplication of 
initiatives to better manage resources, and whether the use of automated machine learning systems 
could help monitoring alignment of domestic legislation with international standards.  OIRSA shared 
its experiences in developing a harmonized regional guide to good risk -based agricultural practices, 
which covered chemical, physical , and biological risks  and targeted small , med ium, and  large 
producers.  Finally, several Members provided some insight into national initiatives to promote 
international harmonization and challenges faced when harmonizing SPS measures.  
1.14.   In November 202 2, the Committee held a Themat ic Session on Interna tional Standards and 
Best Practices in Pest Risk Identification, Assessment , and Management  (see 
paragraph  3.3.   below).  
1.3  Codex, WOAH and IPPC Observatory Projects  
1.15.   Noting that the implementation of international standards at country level could involve 
challenges,  in November 2022 , WOAH explained that it s observatory project was created to provide  
an overview of members' uptake of international standards. WOAH reminded the Committee that, 
once the standards had been adopted, it was members' responsibility to translate them to their 
national legislation an d ensure they were properly implemented.  In March 2023, WOAH drew 
Members' attention to the first annual report of its observatory17, which provided a global perspective 
of Members' implementation of standards. Noting that that the main limitation of its observatory 
was the availability of information both in quantity and quality, WOAH  encouraged Members to 
submit good quality information to enable meaningful analysis  and indicated its willingness to 
provide input if and when the Committee decided to revisi t the SPS notification forms.  
On the margins of the March 2023 Committee meeting, Codex, WOAH , and the IPPC presented their 
observatory projects in the side event "Monitoring the Implementation of International Standards"  
(see section 13  below  and Appendix  B). 
2  EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE 4)  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth  Review18: 
• Members are encouraged to notify any agreement reached on the recognition of equivalence.  
• The Committee should continue discussions and information exchange on the topic of 
equivalence, including systems approaches, through the existing agenda item and in -depth 
discussion during future thematic sessions, informal meetings, and working groups as 
appropriate.  
• SPS Committee  representatives are encouraged to coordinate with their government's 
Codex, OI E, and IPPC representatives and experts to highlight the importance of 
understanding trade impacts during discussions in Codex, OIE and IPPC that bear on the 
issue of equivalence.  
 
16 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1966  and the report is contained in Annex B  of 
G/SPS/R/104 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_nov21_e.htm . 
17 More information is available at: https://www.woah.org/en/what -we-do/standards/observatory/ . 
18 G/SPS/64 , para. 4.11. (italics original) . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.1.  The Committee adopted an initial decision regarding the implementation of A rticle 4 on 
equivalence in October 2001. This initial decision included a commitment to develop a specific work 
programme to further the implementation of Article 4, which was concluded by the adoption of the 
equivalence guidelines in July 200419 and the decision  that equivalence would be a standing agenda 
item for the regular meetings of the Committee.  
2.2.  Under this agenda item, in 20 22, the United  States  informed the Committee that following 
documentation review and on -site verification, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)  of the 
US Department of Agriculture  had determined that Poland's poultry laws, regulations, and inspection 
system achieved an equivalent level of sanitary protection as that of the United  States . Also in 2022, 
the FSIS determined that Lithuania's egg products inspection system achieved an equivalent level 
of sanitary protection and Lithuania's system was recognized as equivalent to export egg products.20 
In 2023, New Zealand notified the recognition of equivalence of Mex ico's SPS measures regarding 
fresh mango ( Mangifera indica ).21 
2.3.  In the context of the Sixth Review , Indonesia submitted a proposal for discussion on systems 
approaches.22 
3  RISK ANALYSIS (ARTICLE 5)  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth Review23: 
• Given the importance of ensuring that SPS measures are based on scientific principles, the 
Committee encourages Members to review periodically the SPS measures implemented in 
their national and/or regional systems, and their risk assessment techniques, as new 
scientific evidence emerges and international standards, guidelines, and recommendations 
are developed and updated by Codex, OIE, or IPPC.  
• The Committee should continue to discuss the topic of risk, including management of 
situations involving insuffic ient scientific information, and consider next steps for discussion.  
• The Committee invites Members to share experiences and examples of national efforts to 
consider scientific uncertainty and/or insufficiency of scientific evidence in risk analysis and 
the development and implementation of SPS measures.  
• The Committee invites Codex, OIE and IPPC to share guidance documents, international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations pertaining to the consideration of scientific 
uncertainty and/or insufficiency o f scientific evidence in risk analysis.  
• The Committee had agreed to hold a Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and 
Risk Communication in June 2020, which had to be postponed due to the COVID -19 
pandemic. The Committee agrees to reschedule this Workshop as soon as the COVID -19 
situation allows.  
 
3.1.  Based on a proposal by Canada24 and to implement the corresponding recommendation from 
the Fifth Review, a Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Communication was 
held vi rtually in July 2021.25 The event drew nearly 1,300 participants, representing Members, 
the ISSBs , other international organizations, the private sector, academia, and civil society.  
The workshop provided a platform for robust exchanges, employing various engagement formats 
such as roundtable discussions, presentations, case studies, video clips, poll questions, 
Q&A sessions, and informal side sessions. In addition, a catalogue of relevant resources to support 
governments in building and operationalizing ri sk analysis frameworks was made available, with 
 
19 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . 
20 G/SPS/N/EQV/USA/8 . 
21 G/SPS/N/EQV/NZL/1 . 
22 G/SPS/W/365 . 
23 G/SPS/64 , para. 2.15. (italics original) . 
24 G/SPS/GEN/1769  and G/SPS/GEN/1769/Rev.1 . 
25 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1911/Rev.2 , and the report is contained in 
document G/SPS/R/103 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_workshop_july21_e.htm . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 9 - 
 
  links to international standards, guidelines and recommendations, presentations, handbooks, 
guides, tools, previous events, and online courses.26 
3.2.  The objective of the workshop was to foster discussions on all aspects of SPS risk analysis – 
risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication – and how they are interlinked. 
The focus was on challenges, best practices, and emerging issues, with interventions from the 
Secretariat, Members, p rivate sector stakeholders, as well as international organizations such as 
Codex, WOAH,  the IPPC, FAO, and the OECD. The Secretariat provided an overview of relevant 
provisions of the SPS Agreement  and Committee work related to all three aspects of risk an alysis. 
Speakers then explored the concept of risk assessment and how to operationalize risk assessment 
from a trade policy perspective and shared experiences on building technical capacities, including 
currently available training tools to help participan ts understand and manage some of the challenges 
associated with risk assessment. The workshop also addressed the concept of risk management, 
including the evaluation of risk management options, implementation, monitoring and review, and 
related issues conc erning the implementation of relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement . 
Challenges with risk management were discussed, such as identifying and evaluating risk 
management options. Finally, regarding the concept of risk communication, speakers explored 
devel oping the goals for a risk communication plan, how to develop a risk communication plan, 
how to ensure through internal and external communications that the results of the risk assessment, 
risk management options, and assumptions and uncertainty of the ris k assessment are clearly 
communicated to internal and external audiences/stakeholders. The importance of forming trust , 
working with transparency , and developing confidence in regulatory decisions was at the heart of 
many of the interventions.  
3.3.  In November 2022, the Committee also held a Thematic Session on International Standards 
and Best Practices in Pest Risk Identification, Assessment, and Management27, on the basis of a 
proposal by the European  Union .28 The purpose of the thematic session was to increase awareness 
about the relevant IPPC International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs), and share 
experiences in pest risk identification, assessment, and management. The thematic session also 
aimed at identifying best practices and challenges associated with: (i) the identification of pests of 
phytosanitary concern; (ii) the performance of pest risk analyses (PRAs); (iii) risk mitigation 
measures; (iv) phytosanitary certifications and/or import con ditions; and (v) IPPC standards on risk 
management.  
3.4.  The Secretariat first provided an overview of the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement , 
the work of the Committee , transparency -related matters and WTO disputes, from the perspective 
of plant health.  The IPPC shared insights on the relevant standards, explored the use of PRAs as a 
tool to enable trade whilst ensuring plant health protection, and highlighted the importance of plant 
health and trade in supporting food security. The FAO presented on plan t health and trade in support 
of food security and nutrition, from a food systems perspective, provided examples of the links 
between plant health and food security and nutrition. Members subsequently shared insights from 
case studies regarding best practi ces in pest risk identification, assessment, and management. 
Another session offered an opportunity for Members and industry representatives to exchange 
practical experiences and case studies in the application of pest risk management in trade and 
explored  the use of reference databases and tools developed by international intergovernmental 
organizations. A final panel discussion allowed for an additional exchange of experiences on 
challenges, opportunities, and best practices, highlighting the importance o f access to and quality 
of information, improving databases, communication between the importing and exporting 
countries, clear timeframes for PRA procedures, and planning. Panellists also referred to the need 
for increased communication with the private s ector on potential risks and to the importance of 
training the private sector on the PRA process. The discussion referred to the importance of 
information exchange between the WTO and the IPPC. As possible areas for future work, the IPPC 
could provide guid ance on risk assessment based on proposed use; develop standardized criteria for 
the assessment of pests of global concern; promote scientific research on topics related to pest risk 
 
26 This catalogue of resources is available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/resources_july21_e.htm . 
27 The programme is availabl e in document G/SPS/GEN/2069/Rev.1  and the report is contained in 
Annex A of G/SPS/R/108 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://ww w.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematic_session_nov22_e.htm . 
28 G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 10 - 
 
  identification, assessment, and management to support national plant prot ection organizations; and 
set up an alert system for emerging viruses.  
3.5.  Building on th e 2021 risk  workshop and based on a proposal by the United  States29, 
a Thematic  Session on Risk Communication, Misinformation, and Disinformation, took place in 
November 2 023.30 This was seen as a relevant theme for discussion by the Committee, as regulators 
around the world were increasingly exposed to information from a multitude of sources, some of 
which may have specific biases or objectives that are not science -based o r risk -based and do not 
contribute to the development of justified SPS measures. The thematic session delved into the 
concepts of information manipulation within the context of the SPS Agreement , with perspectives 
being shared from representatives of Membe rs, industry, consumer organizations, and academia. 
Speakers  discussed the origins of disinformation and misinformation with a view to understanding 
their significance today, as well as the evolution of misinformation and disinformation, their impact 
on po licy decisions, and their deployment in agricultural food safety issues. Strategies for addressing 
issues associated with misinformation or disinformation were shared, including roles and 
responsibilities, communicating with factcheckers, weaponization of information, social media 
influencers, and communicating proactively. Throughout the sessions, discussions covered 
trustworthiness in regulation, experiences from various countries, and actions taken by industries. 
The emphasis was on clear communication a nd proactive approaches.  
3.6.  Many other discussions in the Committee in 2020-23 entailed risk analysis components, notably 
in relation to COVID -19 (see section 15.2  below), maximum residue limits ( MRLs) (see 
section  15.5  below), or the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme (see section 14  below). 
Members  regularly provided  information on topics with risk analysis linkages. To give only a few 
examples : Japan provided regular updates regarding the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear 
power station; the European  Union  discussed its Farm to Fork Strategy31, rules pertaining to 
composite products32, and a study on New Genomic Techniques33; Senegal informed about risk 
management measures implemented to secure the European  Union 's approval of Senegal's mango 
dossier; the United  States  and supporting Members raised concerns about discrepancies in some 
Members' regulatory procedures for approving genetically engineered food products34; and Canada, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, and the United  States  reported on the 
seminar " Farmers' Perspec tives on SPS Challenges for Sustainable Food Production and Trade ".35 
4  CONSISTENCY  (ARTICLE  5.5) 
4.1.  Article 5.5 required the Committee to develop guidelines to further the practical implementation 
of that provision. The Committee adopted such guidelines in Jul y 200036, and subsequently agreed 
to review them as part of the periodic review of the operation and implementation of the 
SPS Agreement . To date no Member has suggested a need to modify these guidelines.  
 
29 G/SPS/GEN/2067  and revision.  
30 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/2155/Rev.1 , and a summary report can be 
found in Annex B to document G/SPS/R/111 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_1411202310_e/sps_1411202310_e.htm . 
31 G/SPS/GEN/1797 . 
32 G/SPS/GEN/1786 . 
33 G/SPS/GEN/1931 . 
34 G/SPS/GEN/1864 . 
35 G/SPS/GEN/1890 . 
36 G/SPS/15 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 11 - 
 
  5  REGIONALIZATION (ARTICLE 6)  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth  Review37: 
• The Committee recognizes the importance of regionalization to safe trade in agricultural 
products. The Committee encourages Members to respond to requests from other Members 
concerning regionalization in a timely manner and to avoid unnecessary requests for 
information . 
• Members are encouraged to use actively and systematically the Guidelines to Further the 
Practical Implementation of Article 6 ( G/SPS/48 ), including the section on Expedited Pro cess 
(Section IV).  
• 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.  
• Under the Committee's agenda item for regionalization, Members are encouraged to share 
experiences on: securing another Member's recognition of regional conditions wi th respect 
to specific plant pests or animal diseases; and recognizing regional conditions of another 
Member with respect to specific plant pests or animal diseases.  
• Members appreciate the information shared by OIE and IPPC on their activities in support o f 
regionalization. Members 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 standard s. 
• The Committee should further discuss issues related to Article 6, including the Committee 
Guidelines, through future thematic sessions, informal meetings or working groups, as 
appropriate.  
 
5.1.  Following adoption of the "Guidelines to Further the Practical  Implementation of Article 6 of the 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures"38, the Committee agreed to 
monitor the implementation of Article 6 on the basis of information provided by Members through 
notifications and from infor mation presented during Committee meetings . The Committee would also  
revise the guidelines, if necessary,  in light of experience gained through the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  and the use of the guidelines. Four reports have been issued by the Secretariat in 
2020-23.39 
5.2.  In 2020-23, several Members provided updates under the agenda item on "Pest- and disease -
free areas (Regionalization) ". 
5.3.  In 2020, Colombia notified the self -declaration of a zone free of Aujeszky's disease, in line with 
WOAH guidelines, accounting for 95 % of the country's industrialized swine production and home to 
the main genetic centers and slaughterhouses for the export of pigs.40 Colombia also informed 
Members that WOAH had restored i ts status as a foot and mouth disease (FMD) -free zone where 
vaccination was practi ced, and invited Members to lift the restrictions imposed by some countries.41 
In 2021, Colombia informed the Committee of the WOAH recognition of Colombia as free of FMD 
with vaccination and free of classical swine fever42, and invited Members to lift restrictions and 
facilitate ongoing processes to ensure market access for beef and pork meat from Colombia.  
5.4.  In 2020 and 2021, Mexico provided information on the self -declarat ion of several areas free 
from fruit flies of the quarantine -significant genus Anastrepha  and species Rhagoletis pomonella43, 
 
37 G/SPS/64 , para. 9.15. (italics original) . 
38 G/SPS/48 . 
39 G/SPS/GEN/1777  (from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020), G/SPS/GEN/1908  (from 1 April 2020 to 
31 March 2021), G/SPS/GEN/2021  (from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022), and G/SPS/GEN/2127  (from 1 April 
2022 to 31 March 2023).  
40 G/SPS/GEN/1856 . 
41 G/SPS/GEN/1768 . 
42 G/SPS/GEN/1930/Rev.1 . Revised documents : G/SPS/GEN/1929/Rev.1  and G/SPS/GEN/1930/Rev.2 . 
43 G/SPS/GEN/1780 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 12 - 
 
  and of several  areas free from large avocado seed weevils ( Heilipus lauri ), small avocado seed 
weevils ( Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ), and avocado seed moths ( Stenoma catenifer ).44 
Mexico indicated that phytosanitary measures had been taken to maintain and protect these areas 
and requested that the self -declarations be used  as reference by their trading partners . 
5.5.  In 2020, Peru highlighted ongoing work with regard to improving health conditions in the 
country. This work had resulted in two self -declarations, also published by WOAH, regarding the 
yellow head virus (genotype 1) and the infectious myonecrosis virus.45 Peru invit ed Members to take 
into account these self -declarations in subsequent trade/health formalities.  
5.6.  In 2020, Chinese Taipei informed Members of its recently gained FMD -free status where 
vaccination was not practiced, officially recognized by WOAH . Chine se Taipei encouraged all 
Members to take note of this recognition  and inform their health and veterinary authorities so that 
restrictions could be lifted.46 
5.7.  Also in 2020, the Russian Federation announced that  it had gained official status of freedom 
from con tagious bovine pleuropneumonia , and explained that extensive studies, analysis and 
sampling had taken place in all its regions.  
5.8.  In 2020, Ukraine provided an u pdate on its avian influenza -free status  and explained that its 
active and passive surveillance sy stem for HPAI and low pathogenic avian influenza was fully in 
compliance with WOAH  recommendations. A single outbreak of HPAI registered among domestic 
poultry in January 2020 had been notified to WOAH and measures had been taken in a timely manner 
and eff ectively implemented by the competent authority of Ukraine.  In 2021, Ukraine reminded 
Members of  its freedom from avian influenza and informed its trading partners that, as of 
28 May 2021, it met all the WOAH requirements as a "country free from infection with HPAI viruses 
in poultry".  
5.9.  In 2021, Canada informed Members of its official recognition by WOAH as having a negligible 
risk for BSE, in accordance with WOAH 's Terrestrial Code and based on documentation submitted by 
Canada and  looked forward to working  with Members toward removing remaining BSE -related 
restrictions on Canadian cattle, beef, and beef products.  
5.10.   In 2021 and 2022, Brazil reported that six Brazilian States had been recognized by WOAH as 
free from FMD without vaccination47. Brazil reported that the last case of FMD had occurred in 2018  
and, since then, the entire country was considered free from FMD. Brazil also reminded Members 
that it was recognized by WOAH as having negligible risk for BSE and encouraged Members to 
continue to su pport the work and apply the standards of the ISSBs . In 2023, Brazil reported on HPAI 
status according to WOAH standards . Brazil  explained that outbreaks had occurred far from 
production areas of poultry for exports and that there had been no occurrences i n commercial 
poultry . Brazil invited Members to consider the principle of regionalization in Article  6 and the 
Committee guidelines48 to ensure animal and human health in their territory and to avoid 
unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
5.11.   In 2021, Chile informed that it had recognized Colombia as free of FMD with vaccination . 
Chile reminded Members that the Committee guidelines49 also included the objective of informing 
on achieved recognition, and regretted that that information was often still missing.  In 2023, 
Chile affirmed that its phytosanitary measures were adapted to the regional characteristics of the 
areas from which the  product originated and to which the product was destined. Chile also informed 
the Committee that it regularly established and updated its lists of quarantine pests and confirmed 
that Xylella fastidiosa  was absent throughout its territory. Chile invited Me mbers to consider the 
information provided when defining the import requirements for its vegetable products.50 
 
44 G/SPS/GEN/1782 , G/SPS/GEN/1 824, G/SPS/GEN/1825 , G/SPS/GEN/1869  and G/SPS/GEN/1875 . 
45 G/SPS/GEN/1793 , G/SPS/N/P ER/873  and G/SPS/N/PER/874 . 
46 G/SPS/GEN/1813  and G/SPS/GEN/1813/Corr.1 . 
47 G/SPS/GEN/1932 . 
48 G/SPS/48 . 
49 G/SPS/48 . 
50 G/SPS/GEN/2107 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.12.   In 2021, t he United  States  informed the Committee that it had temporarily suspended the 
interstate movement of all live swine, swine germplasm, s wine products, and swine by -products 
from Puerto  Rico and the US Virgin Islands to the mainland United  States , to prevent introduction 
of ASF following outbreaks in Dominican Republic and Haiti. The United  States  had submitted to 
WOAH its self -declaration of establishment of a protection zone for Puerto  Rico and the US Virgin 
Islands  to facilitate disease protection and allow for international trade to continue . 
5.13.   In 2022, Türkiye informed the Committee  that eight Turkish districts had been recognized as 
free of Mediterranean fruit fly and urged Members to facilitate trade of fresh fruit from those areas.  
In 2023, Türkiye reported that it was free from  X. fastidiosa  and invited trad ing partners to analy ze 
this progress and  facilitate trade.  
5.14.   In 2023, Argentina reported on the detection of an initial case  of HPAI  in wild birds in its 
territory, followed by 49 cases detected in backyard birds, 7 in commercial birds and 4 in wild birds, 
that had been reported to WOAH. Argentina explained the actions put i n place following the detection 
of avian influenza  in poultry and requested its trading partners to maintain market access 
requirements for poultry products according to WOAH recommendations and consider new proposals 
for certification, adapted to the sani tary situation.  
5.15.   Both the IPPC and WOAH have provided guidance for countries seeking to establish or be 
recognized for pest - or disease -free status. Information provided by these two organizations is 
available here. 
5.16.   In the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme  (see section 14  below) , 
Members held extensive discussions on the topic of regionalization.  
5.17.   In the context of the Sixth Review , Canada , the European  Union , and India  submitted 
proposals for discussion on regionalization.51 
5.18.   In 2020-23, Members discussed 24 STCs related to regionalization.52 
5.1  African  Swine  Fever  (ASF)  
5.19.   At almost every Committee meeting s ince 2018, the European  Union  has raised  the issue 
"ASF restrictions not consistent with the WOAH  international standard" under the agenda item 
"Monitoring of the us e of international standards " (see paragraph 1.4.  above) . Under this item, 
the European  Union  referred to the guidance established in WOAH's Terrestrial Code and complain ed 
that Members d id not follow the recommendations contained therein. The European  Union  claim ed 
that through its regionalization policy, ASF c ould be managed effectively to make sure that legitimate 
and safe trade was not the cause of any outbreak . The European  Union  invite d Members to remove 
country -wide trade bans.  
5.20.   In June 2020, the European  Union  suggested to organize a thematic session on the sub ject 
of ASF53, with the objective to  build confidence among Members to apply trade conditions consistent 
with the SPS Agreement  and international standards.  Later in 2020 , the European  Union  provided 
an update on the ASF situation  under the agenda item on "Information sharing" and  brought to the 
Committee's attention recent ASF cases affecting feral pigs in Germany, which had been notified to 
WOAH and trading partners. The European  Union  explained that intensive surveillance was ongoing 
in all high -risk are as, regionalization and movement restrictions had been put in place, and its 
measures ensured that pigs, pork, and pork products from areas not under trade restrictive 
measures could be placed safely on the EU market and exported.  
5.21.   The Thematic Session on African  Swine  Fever  took place in March 2021.54 At the beginning of 
the session, the Secretariat presented the relevant principles of the SPS Agreement , the work of the 
 
51 G/SPS/W/349  (Canada), G/SPS/W/353  (the European Union) , and G/SPS/W/357  (India).  
52 STC ID 392 , ID 393 , ID 406 , ID 414 , ID 431 , ID 441 , ID 456 , ID 463 , ID 466 , ID 471 , ID 484 , 
ID 489, ID 490 , ID 494, ID 505, ID 538, ID 543 , ID 544 , ID 548 , ID 555, ID 556, ID 558, ID 568 and ID 563 . 
53 G/SPS/W/322 . 
54 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1874/Rev.2  and the report is contained in 
Annex B of G/SPS/R/101 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_thematic_session_230321_e.htm . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Committee , and ASF -related notifications . WOAH presented an overview of the international 
standards relevant to the disease and the epidemiological situation worldwide. FAO and GIRA  
(a consultancy and market research firm operating in the drink and food sectors) provided data on 
the economic impact of ASF on global meat and feed m arkets and global pig  meat supply.  
Subsequently, Members  from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas, ranging from Members where 
the disease is endemic in wildlife to others where it is absent, shared their national experiences and 
their trade strategies.  Finally, FAO, the United  States  and the Global African  Swine  Fever  Research 
Alliance presented international and regional initiatives in the context of ASF.  
5.22.   In July 2020, WOAH, in collaboration with FAO under the Global Framework for the Progressive 
Control  of Transboundary Animal Diseases launched a joint initiative for the Global Control of 
African  Swine  Fever , which aimed at bringing stakeholders from multiple sectors together to improve 
coordination and galvanize the sustained effort and political will n eeded for the global control of ASF.  
5.23.   In 2020-23, Members discussed f ive STCs related to ASF.55 
5.2  Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)  
5.24.   At almost every Committee meeting since 2015, the European  Union  has raised the issue 
"HPAI restrictions not consistent with the WOAH  international standard" under the agenda item  
"Monitoring of the use of international standards"  (see paragraph 1.4.  above) . Under this item, 
the European  Union  remin ded that it had not experience d any incidents that put in question the trust 
in its effective and transparent system of control and eradication of avian influenza, and claim ed 
there was no just ification for some Members to apply country -wide bans and await long periods to 
restore the disease -free status . On this topic, the European  Union  called on all Members to respect 
their obligations on regionali zation under the SPS Agreement  and the recomme ndations of 
the ISSBs.  
5.25.   In 2021, WOAH informed the Committee of the adoption of revisions of two chapters of 
its Terrestrial Code: chapter 1.3, regarding the names of relevant diseases, and chapter 10.4, on 
infection with HPAI viruses , and one chapter of its Terrestrial Manual: chapter 3.3.4, on 
avian  influenza.  
5.26.   In 2023, Brazil shared information on its actions to protect poultry production from HPAI and 
informed Members of its contingency plan providing for the diagnosis of any suspected case  
(see paragraph  7.1.  below) . 
5.27.   In 2020-23, Members discussed t hirteen STCs related to avian influenza.56 
6  TRANSPARENCY (ARTICLE 7 AND ANNEX B)  
Recommend ations resulting from the Fifth  Review57: 
• Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee  notifications when a 
measure has been notified to another Committee. [*] Members should include this 
information under the point of the notification format titled "Other relevant documents and 
language(s) in which these are available".  
[* fn original] 59: Please refer to section 2.7 of the Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency 
Obligations of the SPS Agreement  (Article 7)  in document G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , which also makes reference to notifying a 
regulation containing SPS and TBT measures under both the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
 
 
55 STCs ID 392 , ID 393 , ID 466 , ID 544  and ID 563 . 
56 STCs ID 406 , ID 413 , ID 431 , ID 456 , ID 466 , ID 484 , ID 494 , ID 505 , ID 521 , ID 556 , ID 558 , 
ID 562 and ID 573 . 
57 G/SPS/6 4, para. 7.13. (italics original) . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 15 - 
 
  6.1.  In the context of the Sixth Review , Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European  Union , India,  and 
New Zealand submitted proposals for discussion on transparency and notification procedures.58 
6.1  Online Systems  
6.1.1   ePing SPS&TBT Platform59 
6.2.  Since 2022, the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform  integrates all previous SPS and TBT transparency 
tools into a single platform. The Platform allows searches of SPS (and TBT) notifications, STCs , 
other  documents , as well as contact information of NNAs and NEPs. Register ed users benefit from 
additional features, including receiving email alerts on notifications on products and/or markets of 
interest. Officials with additional rights can use the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  to submit notifications 
to the WTO, update NNA and NEP contact details, and, on a voluntary basis, disseminate their 
comments/replies on notifications. Extracting data from a single source reduces errors and 
maintenance costs. Additionall y, under the single sign -on system recently developed by the 
Secretariat, users can access all WTO databases to which they have rights with a single set of 
credentials. Since the beginning of the project in 2021, the SPS (and TBT) Committee has been 
regula rly informed of progress made in the development of the platform. Video tutorials on the main 
functionalities of the platform, as well as some frequently asked questions and other relevant 
resources are also available in the platform . New training materials , including an update of the 2018 
edition of the Procedural Manual for NNAs and NEPs, will be developed in due course.60 
6.3.  The Platform was  officially launched61 in 2022, with the participation of senior officials from 
the three ePing partner agenci es, the  UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), 
the International Trade Center (ITC) and the WTO . Additionally, in response to a survey undertaken 
in 202162, a mobile ePing application was made available in the second half of 2022, which all ows 
users to access some of the functionalities of the Platform. Since it was launched, ePing has been 
the object of numerous general and dedicated training sessions , including national, regional and 
global WTO courses . The ePing SPS&TBT Platform  was at the core of the Committee's Workshop s on 
Transparency held in June 2022 and in March 2024  (see paragraph 8.24.   below ) and  the new 
Transparency Champion s Course  (see paragraph 8.20.  below) , and also discussed in a thematic 
session of October 2023 held by the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session 
(CTD-SS) (see paragraph 9.3.  below).  
6.1.2   eAgenda  
6.4.  eAgenda is a password -protected collaborative tool that streamlines Members ' and 
the Secretariat 's work in the preparation of and during Committee meeting s. eAgen da was launched 
in 2019 . In February 2020, nine Members took part in the pilot -test phase of the SPS eAgenda, in 
preparation for the March 2020 Committee meeting, subsequently cancelled due to the COVID -19 
pandemic.63 SPS eAgenda was used for the first time in the June 2020 Committee meeting, allowing 
for the exchange of written statements. In the subsequent September 2020 informal consultations, 
delegates expressed a preference for oral meetings. The Committee therefore decided that in the 
future,  the ability to exchange written statements through eAgenda would only be used to 
complement oral exchanges in Committee meetings, not to replace them.  
6.5.  About six weeks before the Committee meeting, in parallel with the circulation of the convening 
notice, eAgenda opens for Members to add agenda items for the upcoming Committee meeting. 
Members also have the possibility to raise and support STCs through the platform and upload 
statements prior to their interventions. eAgenda allows users to : retrieve documen ts for upcoming 
and past meetings ; consult STCs previously raised in the Committee in general and involving its own 
delegation in particular ; download statements from one, or all Members from past meetings; 
customize alerts to be informed of information up loaded in the platform ; and consult users registered 
 
58 G/SPS/W/352  (Brazil) , G/SPS/W/349  (Canada) , G/SPS/W/364  (Chile) , G/SPS/W/353  
(the European  Union) , G/SPS/W/356  (India),  and G/SPS/W/348  (New Zealand) . 
59 https://eping.wto.org/ . 
60 Documents on the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  circulated in 2020-23 are available here. 
61 G/SPS/GEN/2 058-G/TBT/GEN/336 . The news item is available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news22_e/igo_13jul22_e.htm . 
62 G/SPS/GEN/1933 -G/TBT/GEN/317 . 
63 JOB/SPS/5/Rev.1/Corr.1 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 16 - 
 
  in the platform from their own delegation. A practical guide available on the platform explains the 
main features of eAgenda . Since March 2024, SPS eAgenda provides an overview of all the activities 
taking place during the Committee week, with hyperlinks to relevant information.  
6.6.  The platform, which was pioneered in the TBT and SPS Committee s64, was later made available 
in the Market Access and Import Licensing Committees, as well as in the CTG. Almost all  
WTO Committees are currently using or getting ready to use the platform . The Secretariat work s in 
close collaboration to examine Members' requests for improvements in eAgenda, harmonizing its 
functioning as much as possible while preserving the uniqueness  of each of the Committees , 
as requested as part of the discussions on improving the functioning of the SPS Committee  
(see section  15.4  below).  While credentials need to be request ed separately to access the eAgendas 
used in different Committees, registered users with the same credentials are able to navigate 
through the different platforms due to the WTO single sign -on system.  
6.7.  As of 31 December 2023, almost 400 users from more than 90 Members  have requested access 
to SPS eAgenda. Of these, almost half requested reading rights ( they can  access the platform, but 
cannot add information to it), and the remaining half was granted  full editing rights  (they ca n see 
the same information , as well as add agenda items, raise STCs , and upload statements ). 
6.1.3   Trade Concerns Database  
6.8.  In 2021, the Secretariat informed Members of the Trade Concern Database (TCD)65, a strong 
analytical tool for STCs created as a response to Members' requests on the integration of SPS and 
TBT IT tools. The database  provides a more powerful, user -friendly graphic interface for the analysis 
and visuali zation of data already available and  allows for more targeted and advanced searches. 
This analytical tool is fed from the data available in eAgenda. The extraction of data from a single 
source ensures consistency and reduces maintenance costs and errors. The database contains 
information on trade concerns raised since 1995 in a granular way, organized on a per meeting 
basis, facilitating more thorough analysis and reporting. The database provides Member profiles and 
allows users to explore and visualize results by objectives, keywords, and HS  codes, among other 
options. This website, first launched for SPS and TBT trade concerns in February 2021, now also 
includes STCs discussed in the Market Access and Import Licensing Committees and in  the CTG . 
Since 2023 the database contains cross-referenc es of potentially related STCs discussed in the TBT, 
SPS, Committee on Market Access,  and the CTG . 
6.1.4   E-Delegate  
6.9.  In 2023 the Secretariat started the transition towards the new E-Delegate platform,  a dedicated 
"one-stop shop " on the WTO website which allow s delegations to have an interface to manage their 
participation in WTO Committees. The platform facilitate s the sharing of delegates' contact 
information, access  to platforms and online tools, and the signing  up to receive emails concerning 
particular WTO Committees. An  information session was held in November 2023. The platform was 
first made available to delegation coordinators and was subsequently made available for all Geneva - 
and capital -based delegates t hat already had access to eRegistration.  Following a transition period, 
the Secretariat gradually phased out the Committee e -mailing list and replaced it by E -Delegate 
generated lists from May 2024  onwards.  
6.2  "Technical Revision" of  Document  G/SPS/7/Rev.5  
6.10.   In June 2022, the  Secretariat announced a "technical revision" of the Recommended 
Transparency Procedures66, following the official launch of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform . The revision 
reflect s the possibility to submit notifications online, provide s explanations on the specific access 
rights available, and introduce s some editorial changes. No substantive changes were made to the 
recomme nded procedures. The updated procedures were circulated as  document  G/SPS/7/Rev.5  in 
January 2023.  
 
64 G/SPS/GEN/1818 . 
65 https://tradeconcerns.wto.org/en . 
66 G/SPS/7/Rev.4 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 17 - 
 
  6.3  Update on the Implementation of Transparency Provisions  
6.11.   Managing information on transparency remains challenging for many developing country 
Members . Many have flagged their need for assistance and support to resolve their individual 
transparency difficulties, for example with the process of sending notifications to the WTO. 
Other  difficulties faced by developing country Members relate to the operation of their SPS NNA and 
NEPs. In addition, the importance of Members updating information available on the ePing SPS&TBT 
Platform  on NNAs and NEPs  was highlighted, as it assisted the process of communicating with trading 
partners.  
6.12.   The Secretariat continue d to provide annual updates on the level of implementation of the 
transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement .67 As of 31 December  2023, Members h ad submitted 
21,689 regular notifications  and 3,399 emergency notifications  (plus related addenda and 
corrigenda).68 The Committee ha d also previously adopted a special format and recommended 
procedures for the notification of determination of the recognition of equivalence of sanitary or 
phytosanitary measures, now included in the transparency procedures. As of 31 December 2023, 
11 equivalence notifications  had been submitted. Furthermore, the Secretariat ha d previously 
established a mechanism for Members to inform each other of the availability of translations of 
notified measures into one of the official languages of the WTO. These are submitted in the form of 
supplemental notifications. As of  31 December 2023 , 19 supplemental not ifications  had been 
circulated ; the last supplement was s ubmitted in 2015 and Members are now more frequently using 
the ePing SPS&TBT Platform  to inform each other of the availability of unofficial translations o f 
regulations.  
6.13.   As of 31 Decem ber 2023, 135 (82%) out of the 164 Members had submitted at least 
one SPS notification to the WTO. Members which had not submitted any notification so far include 
12 developing countries  and 10 LDC Members . In addition, a number of EU  member States have not 
submitted notifications; however, most SPS measures are notified by the European  Union  on behalf 
of all its member States.69 
6.14.   As can be seen in Chart 1, the share of notifications submitted by developing country Members 
(excluding LDC s) reaches 55% while the share of those submitted by developed country Members 
is 41%. This  reflect s a steady increase in notifications from developing country Members. 
While  notifications by LDCs represent a very small share , they have  increased between 2 020 and 
2023. 
 
67 Document series G/SPS/GEN/804 ; the latest revision was issued in February 2024 . Since 2021, 
this document has been merged with the annual overview on the STCs previously contained in document series 
G/SPS/GEN/204 . In 2020, the Secretariat published the " SPS 10 Key Results  from 2020 ", based on the 2020 
annual reports on transparency and STCs. 
68 Members had also submitted 7,886 addenda  and 626 corrigenda  to regular and emergency notifications.  
69 See G/SPS/GEN/456  and G/SPS/GEN/456/Corr.1  for notification procedures for the European Union 
and its member States.  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Chart 1 – Development status of notifying Members as of 31 December 20 23 
 
 
6.15.   Under the SPS Agreement , Members are required to notify both an enquiry point to provide 
answers to all reasonable questions from interested Members and a national notification authority 
to implement the notification procedures detailed in the SPS Agreement . As of 31 December 2023 , 
160 Members out of 164 had designated a notification authority. Those Members which had not yet 
done so are all LDCs. Of the 164 Members, 16 2 had provided the WTO with the contact information 
of their enquiry point(s). One developing country and one LDC have not yet established an NEP . 
Thirty -four Members had  also identified more than one SPS NEP. The updated lists containing the 
contact information of  NEPs and NNAs are available from the ePing SPS&TBT Platform . 
6.16.   At each meeting, Members are invited to raise any questions or concerns with regard to the 
implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement . Transparency regarding 
SPS measures and policies is also provided by Members' reporting on relevant activities and 
developments under the agenda item "Information Sharing", in addition to "Operation of 
Transparency Provisions". Members frequently use this opportunity to present information on new 
regulatory policies, risk assessment practices, establishm ent of national SPS coordinating 
committees, etc. The standard  setting observer organizations also provide relevant information 
under the agenda item on "Information Sharing", further enhancing transparency.  
6.17.   In 2023, Brazil informed the Committee that it h ad made over 220 SPS notifications in 2022, 
it had two enquiry points to maintain a consistent high number of notifications, and it had been able 
to raise awareness among its producers of the importance of notifying SPS measures . 
Brazil  encouraged Members to share experiences and provide information on their transparency 
activities under this agenda item.  In March 2024, a side event was organized by COLEAD in 
partnership with the European  Union  to introduce  the AGRINFO platform, a tool developed to foster 
more transparency in the form of up -to-date information on new and upcoming EU policies and 
regulations that have a potential impact on market access for agri -food and fisheries products.70 
7  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (ARTICLE 8 AND ANNEX C)  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth Review71: 
• The Committee should continue discussions and information exchange on the topic of control, 
inspection and approval procedures. To that end, the Committee should 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.  
 
70 https://agrinfo.eu/ . 
71 G/SPS/64 , para. 3.12. (italics original) . 
G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 19 - 
 
  • Following the fruitful exchange of experiences and ideas at the November 2019 
SPS Committee  Thematic Session  on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create a 
working group open to the participation of all Members and Observers to continue to examine 
the topic of approval procedures. The working group could 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 Member'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.  
 
7.1.  In 2020, in light of the first recommendation above regarding co ntrol, inspection and approval 
procedures , a new standing item was included on the agenda of regular Committee meetings  on 
"Control , inspection and approval procedures " for Members to share experiences, raise any questions 
or concerns regarding the implementation of Article 8 of and Annex C to the SPS Agreement . 
Members shared information  under this new item  on only two occasions.  In 2020 , Canada informed 
Members about  inspection initiatives, namely , the Standard Inspection Procedure, outlining 
a common inspection approach for all regulated commodities, and the Operational Procedure: 
Meat Compliance Verification System, providing guidance to staff on how to conduct inspect ions in 
all licensed meat processing, storage, and slaughter establishments.72 In 2023, Brazil shared 
information on its  contingency plan for the diagnosis of suspected case s of HPAI  and model to 
minimize the risk of introduction and spread of HPAI. 
7.2.  In 202 0, following a proposal from Canada73, a Working  Group on Approval Procedures  was set 
up to implement the second recommendation from the Fifth Review  above  regarding approval 
procedures . Twenty -five Members participated:  Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Ecuador, the European  Union , Japan, Mexico, New  Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, 
the Philippines,  the Russian  Federation, Singapore, South  Africa, Switzerland, Chinese  Taipei, 
Ukraine, the United Kingdom , the United  States , and Uruguay. The OECD  was also  a participant . 
Canada and Paraguay acted as co -stewards.  
7.3.  The Working  Group on Approval Procedures worked electronically and met virtually on the 
margins of the Committee meetings as well as int ersessionally, as required .74 Between November 
2020 and March 2023, s even rounds of work  were conducted , mirroring  the schedule of Committee 
meetings. Following each round of work, the co -stewards reported on the work at the informal 
meeting of the Committ ee to keep Members appraised of the progress  made .75 
7.4.  The Working  Group  on Approval Procedures : (i) developed a common understanding of 
approval procedures for the purposes of the  Working  Group ; (ii) discuss ed tools available and best 
practices to enhance t he implementation of the  obligations of the SPS Agreement  as they apply to 
approval procedures and compiled  a collection of readily available tools and resources;  (iii) identified 
key challenges of approval procedures that impact international trade and th at the Committee should 
seek to address76; (iv) identif ied principles of approval procedures that facilitate international trade 
while meeting the importing Member's ALOP and the Committee's role in highlighting these 
principles77; and (v) discuss ed possible outcomes.  In addition, participants liaised with the OE CD on 
 
72 G/SPS/GEN/1835 . 
73 G/SPS/W/328 . 
74 Along the lines of Canada's proposed guidance in documents G/SPS/W/328  and G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 , 
as updated by Canada and Paraguay in document G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1 . 
75 G/SPS/R/101 , Annex  A; G/SPS/R/102 , Annex A ; G/SPS/R/103 , Annex A ; G/SPS/R/104 , Annex A ; 
G/SPS/R/105 , Annex  A; G/SPS/R/106 , Annex  A; G/SPS/R/107 , Annex  A; G/SPS/R/108 , Annex  B; 
G/SPS/R/100 , Section 4.4.2 and Annex B.  
76 Discussions focused on challenges associated with: timing and undue delays; transparency; 
communication or information exchange; justification and dis crimination of approval procedures; 
harmonization with international standards; and other challenges such as COVID -19. 
77 The principles of approval procedures highlighted by participants include d the need for science -based 
and risk -based SPS measures; time ly approvals; transparency, communication (e.g. to provide status updates 
or request additional information or clarification), and publication of procedures, requirements, and standard G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 20 - 
 
  its related work on approval procedures, with the OECD providing regular updates and participants 
providing input on the related  OECD work project. The Working Group on Approval Procedures  
concluded in 2023 and  circulated  three output documents: a Summary of Process and Discussions 
for the Working Group  providing a detailed account of its work78; a Collection of Available Tools and 
Resources  organized by key themes79; and a N ote on Outcomes and Recommendations .80 The first of 
these documents was circu lated to inform the Committee about the group's activities and the latter 
two documents were submitted for adoption.  
7.5.  In 2023, t he Committee adopted the Collection of Available Tools and Resources in Relation to 
SPS Approval Procedures (G/SPS/67 ) as well as the  Recommendations in Relation to SPS Approval 
Procedures  (G/SPS/68 ).81 Recommendations include d that: 
a. the Collection of Available Tools and Resources in document G/SPS/67  be kept up -to-date 
by the Committee with the assistance of the Secretariat;  
b. Members consider the use of Committee mechanisms  (including the new agenda item of 
Committee meetings on Control, inspection and approval procedures, the Sixth Review , 
and the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme)  to facilitate discussions on approval 
procedures  and explore the need for additional guidance or tools ; 
c. Members be encouraged to further the implementation of Annex C to the SPS Agreement ; 
d. Members be reminded of the importance of key principles of the SPS Agreement , including 
those reflected in Annex C, with specific recommendations  for Members  in the context of 
the transparency principle ; 
e. Members be encouraged to engage in regulatory cooperation to maximize capacity and 
resources, facilitate approval procedures, and address asynchronous approvals; and  
f. Members be encouraged to adopt approval procedures making use of modern technologies 
and practices, such as remote audits, and work with relevant international organizations 
in this area.  
7.6.  Concomitantly to the adoption of these documents, an OECD side event w as held in the margins 
of the Committee meeting to present its report on SPS approval procedures, key issues, their impact 
on trade and ways to address them .82 This OECD report had been published a month prior and had 
benefited from the input of working gr oup participants and other Members.  
8  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES  (ARTICLE 9)  
8.1  Information from Members  
8.1.  "Technical assistance " is a standing agenda item. At each regular meeting, Members and 
Observers are invited to identify any specific tech nical assistance needs which they may have, and/or 
report on any SPS -related capacity building activities in which they are involved.  
8.2.  A number of Members have used the occasion of the Committee  meetings to comment on 
particular projects or activities that have enhanced their capacity to implement and benefit from the 
 
processing periods, including procedure stages and deadlines; non -discrimination between Members with the 
same SPS status; harmonization with international standards in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement; 
and equitable fees.  
78 G/SPS/GEN/2097 . 
79 G/SPS/GEN/2098 . In the process of developing this collection of available tools and resources, the 
Working Group on Approval Procedures consulted with the ISSBs, with WOAH providing input on the collection.  
80 G/SPS/GEN/2099 . 
81 These documents had first been circulated as documents G/SPS/W/337  and G/SPS/W/338  for the 
Committee's consideration and possible adoption.  
82 G/SPS/ GEN/2105 . The OECD held two other side events in 2020 -23: one on  remote audits and  
another one on electronic certifications (see paragraph s 15.36.   -15.37.   below  and APPENDIX B – OVERVIEW 
OF COMMITTEE side events  IN). G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 21 - 
 
  SPS Agreement . Some Members provide periodic updates regarding their SPS -related technical 
assistance activities, in particular Canada, the European  Union , Japan,  and the United  States .83 
8.3.   Every year in 2020-23, Canada provided an update of its technical assistance activities  
delivered to developing countries and LDCs.84 In its reports, Canada listed the technical assistance 
projects provided to more than 28 counties in Africa, Latin America , the Caribbean, Central Asia and 
the Asia -Pacific region, which in some years  amounted up to approximately CDN$17 million. 
This assistance addressed three of the four broad categories included in G/SPS/GEN/206 , namely: 
information, training, and 'soft' infrastructural development.  
8.4.  In 2020-23, the European  Union  reported on its SPS-related activities .85 The assistance was 
provided to more than 80 countries, groups of countries, regional organizations, and international 
organizations, with projects ranging from 4 thousand to 40 million euro. The assistance was geared 
towards capacity b uilding, improving governance, and meeting international standards, and aimed 
at facilitating the development and implementation of SPS measures in developing countries to 
enhance their ability to comply with SPS standards in their export markets and take better advantage 
of the opportunities of global trade.  
8.5.  In 2020 and 2023, Japan informed the Committee about its SPS-related technical assistance  
provided .86 The total value of the accumulated Japanese assistance amounted to approximately JPY 
10 billion (US$ 60.5 million) since 1 April 2009. In total, 111 relevant programs had been undertaken 
since 1 April 2009, to  more than 50 countries in various regions, including Asia, the Pacific Region, 
Central America, South America, Central Asia, and Africa. This assistance addressed the four broad 
categories included in G/SPS/GEN/206 , namely: information, training, 'sof t' infrastructural 
development , and 'hard' infrastructural development.  
8.6.  In 2020, t he United  States  shared information on a technical assistance project involving 
genetically engineered eggplant in Bangladesh and the results of two project assessment studie s 
conducted by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Cornell University.87 
In 2020-23, the United  States  reported on technical assistance  provided to developing countries and 
newly acceding countries in the fields of food safety, animal health, plant health, and agricultural 
biotechnology.88 The projects included regional trade capacity building workshops and conferences, 
hands -on training programs, fellowships and exchanges, and site visits to US research and academic 
institutions . It aimed to foster a clear understanding of key SPS provisions in international and 
bilateral trade agreements. Both in the Committee meeting and in a side event on 
"Improved  SPS Capacity through Distance Learning " in July 2021, t he United  States  also shared 
freely accessible online resources, inclu ding a suite of SPS e-learning courses at 
http://www.spscourses.com/ .89 Finally, t he United  States  detailed its partnership with the STDF and 
other collaborators on biopesticides,  the IPPC ePhyto Solution , and the P -IMA tool.90 
8.7.  In 2020, Belize reported on the participation of several officers of the Belize Agricultural Health 
Authority in a virtual training on PRAs, organized by OIRSA.91 About 800 professionals from the 
OIRSA region as well as from South America participated in the five -module online training.  In 2021, 
Belize informed Members of its participation in the regional training "Regional Identification and 
Diagnostic Training for Molluscs of Quarantine and Economic Importance with emphasis on 
Giant  African Snail", sponsored by OI RSA. 
 
83 Contributions made by Members on technical assistance in 2020-23 are available here. 
84 G/SPS/GEN/1834  (2019), G/SPS/GEN/1962  (2020), G/SPS/GEN/2070  (2021) and G/SPS/GEN/2159 . 
(2022).  
85 G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.5  and G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.5/Corr.1  (during the period 2017 -2018) and 
G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.6  (during the period 2019 -2020).  
86 G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.8  (during the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020) and 
G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.9  (during the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023).  
87 G/SPS/GEN/1805 . 
88 G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.14  (between 1 O ctober 2018 and 30 September 2019), G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.15  
(between October 2019 to September 2020) and G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.16  (between October 2020 to 
September 2021).  
89 G/SPS/GEN/1914 . 
90 G/SPS/GEN/2183 . 
91 G/SPS/GEN/1840 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 22 - 
 
  8.8.  Also in 2020, Chinese Taipei shared information regarding SPS -related technical assistance in 
2018-2021 in the Caribbean region, Central America, and West Asia, amounting to a total value of 
approximately US$5 million. Projects aimed at helping Member s prevent and control regulated pests 
of economic fruits or forest as well as enhance their ability to export agricultural products in the 
international market.  
8.9.  In 2021, Canada and the United  States  reported on an APEC Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) 
Harmoni zation Workshop Summary, which was co -sponsored by Australia, Canada, Chile, 
New Zealand and the Philippines.92 A second workshop was scheduled for June 2021 and the aim 
was for APEC economies to work to produce a best practice guide on MRL regulatory appr oaches. 
The workshop had provided an opportunity to discuss best practices for the enforcement and risk 
management of MRLs and had explored approaches to facilitate international trade.  
8.10.   In 202 2, Bangladesh informed the Committee of a five -year project, fun ded by USDA, aimed 
at simplifying, modernizing and harmonizing the process for the exportation, importation and transit 
of agricultural goods, and at improving compliance with the SPS Agreement . Bangladesh highlighted 
two of the projects related to SPS act ivities aimed at : (i) improving laboratories and testing 
procedures; and (ii) enhancing cold storage infrastructure for high value perishable goods.  
8.11.   In 2023, Argentina provided examples of the international technical cooperation provided to 
third countries in 2012-2022 regarding agricultural matters.93 Through more than 240 initiatives in 
more than 65 countries and groups of countries, this cooperation prioritized the development, 
dissemination and applicatio n of agricultural  measures , including SPS measures in developing 
country partners in order to enhance their capacities to improve agricultural production, quality and 
productivity.  
8.12.   Senegal updated Members on its e -certification progress achieved with the h elp of the STDF 
and Germany.  
8.13.   The Russian Federation reported on its technical assistance activities to countries of the 
Eurasian region aimed at the development and implementation of national strategies and action 
plans to address the risks of AMR. The  Russian Federation also provided capacity building on 
monitoring of antimicrobial resistant pathogens, control of the efficient use of antibiotics and 
research on residues of antibiotics in food, as well as training and methodological support for food 
safety services.  
8.14.   In addition, other Members , such as Ukraine, provided technical assistance -related 
information on an ad hoc  basis in 2020-23. 
8.15.   Observer organizations also regularly report on their technical assistance activities.94 
8.16.   In the context of the Sixth Review, Canada, the European  Union , New Zealand,  and 
the United  Kingdom  submitted proposals for discussion on technical assistance and S&D treatment.95 
8.2  WTO SPS Activities  
8.17.   The Secretariat regularly report s on its assistance activities. WTO's technical assistance 
activities in the SPS area aim at increas ing participants' awareness about rights and obligations 
under the SPS Agreement  and its implications at the national level. In the organization of 
SPS technical assistance activities, the  levels of familiarity with the SPS Agreement  and 
advancement in its implementation are taken into consideration to meet and respond to individual 
country/regional needs. The programmes of national/regional activities may include presentations 
on the trans parency obligations, SPS IT tools, dispute settlement, implementation problems, STCs 
and technical/scientific issues such as risk analysis and equivalence, as well as the work undertaken 
by the ISSBs , among other topics . 
 
92 G/SPS/GEN/1884/Rev.1 . 
93 G/SPS/GEN/2125 . 
94 Contributions made by observer organizations in 2020-23 are available here. 
95 G/SPS/W/349  (Canada), G/SPS/W/353  (the European Unio n), G/SPS/W/348  (New Zealand), and 
G/SPS/W/360  (the United Kingdom).  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 23 - 
 
  8.18.    Since 2010, Members have been info rmed at the beginning of each year of all SPS -related 
planned technical assistance activities and interested officials are invited to submit applications for 
specific events. The latest revision of G/SPS/GEN/997  contains all the detailed information on  
eligibility criteria, deadlines, funding, pre -requisites , and application processes  via an online 
application form . In 2020, t he Secretariat announced a new interactive e -Learning  SPS Course on 
the SPS Agreement .96 The SPS Events, workshops and training  gateway of the WTO website contains 
further information on technical assistance activities . 
8.19.   In 2021, the Secretariat informed Members of a new SPS In -depth Virtual Course97, delivered 
virtually, in English, in September -October  2021. The course was  dedicated to a comprehensive 
analysis of aspects related to the implementation of the SPS Agreement  and topical SPS issues to 
enable the effective participation of capital -based delegates in the Committee. Other core 
components of the course included participants' self -study, inter -sessional assignments, group work 
and simulation a Committee  meeting . In addition, the course benefit ed from the participation of 
current and former Chairpersons , delegates, Codex, IPPC, WOAH , SPS experts , the STDF , and 
WTO Secretariat.  
8.20.   In 2022, the Secretariat held the first edition of the SPS Transparency Champions Course , 
launched by the WTO Director General98. This comprehensive capacity building programme  was 
targeted at 18 government officials from SPS NNAs and/or NEPs from 13 English -speaking African 
countries . The course provided them with an opportunity to gain knowledge and practical sk ills to 
implement as well as benefit from the WTO's transparency framework . The goal of this programme 
was to bring about concrete and sustainable results in operationalizing the transparency framework 
of the WTO. This course aimed to equip participants wi th the comprehensive knowledge and practical 
skills to implement and benefit from the WTO's SPS  transparency framework. The first week of the 
course was held at the WTO in October 2022 , followed by a  virtual segment a few weeks later . 
With the support of e xternal coaches from several Members, participants developed an action plan 
that was implemented upon return to their home countries. The course concluded with a face -to-
face activity follow-up session in June 2023 for participants to report on the progress and 
implementation of their action plans.  
8.21.   Also in 2022, the Secretariat organized a Virtual Course on Essentials for SPS Committee  
Participation, that was held virtually in November 2022  with the participation of 16 government 
officials from Frenc h-speaking African countries. The course aimed to enhance the participation of 
French -speaking African countries in the Committee.  
8.22.   In 2023, the Secretariat organized a revamped Advanced SPS C ourse on the SPS Agreement  
in English.  Twenty -six participants fr om 26 Members and Observers attended the two -week Course 
in October 2023 and returned to their home countries to roll out action plans with a view to improving 
implementation of the SPS Agreement . Coaches from Uganda, the STDF , and the Secretariat  
monitore d the implementation of the action plans by participants, who will share the results of the 
actions taken in their countries in a follow -up session of the course to be held in June 2024.  
8.23.   The Secretariat regularly  organizes workshop s held back -to back with one of the meetings of 
the Committee. In 2021, the Secretariat organized a Workshop on Risk Assessment, 
Risk Managemen t, and Risk Communication , based on a proposal by Canada 
(see paragraph  3.1.  above) .99 
8.24.   In 20 22, the Secretariat organized a Workshop on Transparency.100 This 2022 W orkshop 
covered the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement , as well as relevant Committee and 
 
96 The eLearning SPS Course  is available from the WTO eLearning website at: 
http://wtolearning.csod.com  and the trailer is available at: https://youtu.be/Fp2O -9pb-6g. 
97 More information is available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/virtual_course2021_e.pdf . 
98 A similar course was also offered in the TBT area. See 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news22_e/tech_10oct22_e.htm . 
99 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1911/Rev.2  and the report is contained in 
Annex B of G/SPS/R/102  and in document G/SPS/R/103 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_workshop_july21_e.htm . 
100 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/2015/Rev.1  and the report is contained in 
G/SPS/R/106 . Presentations  and more inform ation are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop_transparency_20jun22_e.htm . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Ministerial Decisions and discussions in the Committee . The Secretariat provided a snapshot on the 
ongoing transparency -related work in the TBT Committee an d the transparency recommendations 
resulting from the triennial reviews of the TBT Agreement. The Secretariat also provided a brief 
overview of relevant sources of SPS -related information, including: Documents  Online , the Trade 
Concerns Database , eAgenda  and the detailed functionalities of the new ePing SPS&TBT Platform . 
Participants also learned about the use of ePing in Viet Nam as part of an ITC project. The Secreta riat 
presented an overview of the functions available in the ePing  SPS&TBT Platform , and Members had 
an opportunity to share experiences related to the new tool. The Secretariat also presented the 
notifications submission and outreach functions of the Platform, and addressed questions on the 
different notification access rights, email alerts, advanced search filters, multiple notification 
administrators, domestic c oordination, and the development of a mobile application to facilitate 
private sector use of the Platform.  In addition to the Workshop, a  “Notifications clinic” dedicated to 
the notification submission functions, targeted to SPS notification authorities an d enquiry points was 
held virtually. In 2024, the Secretariat organized another Workshop on Transparency .101 
8.25.   Building on the success of the 2022 edition, the 2024 Workshop brought together SPS NNAs 
and NEPs government officials , in charge of the implementat ion of the transparency provisions of 
the SPS Agreement , to engage in a technical discussion on SPS transparency -related work , and to 
exchange experiences on the use of online transparency tools.  Participants benefited from 
presentations on the transparenc y-related work of the SPS and TBT Committees, an update by the 
ISSBs  on the monitoring of the implementation of international standards and Members' experiences 
on the preparation and submission of notifications and on the use of the Platform to reach out to 
national stakeholders and to other Members. Participants also actively engaged on group work on 
the transparency provisions and the roles and responsibilities of NNAs and NEPs, and deepened their 
knowledge on how to build the operational capacity of the se types of institutions.  
8.26.   In 2023, the Secretariat organized a Workshop, in collaboration with the STDF, on "Facilitating 
safe trade: STDF solutions to strengthen SPS capacity in developing and least developed 
countries".102 This event was held in the conte xt of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme  
(see section 14   below) . That same year, the Secretariat also organized two briefing session s for 
new SPS delegates on the work and functioning of the Committee . 
8.27.   The Secretariat reports annually on all SPS -related technical assistance activities provided 
since September 1994.103 In 1994 -2023, the Secretariat undertook  480 technical assistance 
activities on the SPS Agreement , including 103 regional (or sub -regional) and 222 national seminars. 
Table 1 provides in formation about the number of sub -regional and national activities per year since 
the last review of the operation and implementation of the SPS  Agreement . Table 2 shows the overall 
number of activities per region since 1994.  
Table 1: Number of SPS technic al assistance activities provided by the Secretariat  
Year Type of activity  
Total  National 
seminar  (Sub)Regional 
Workshop  Other104 
2020 8 1 3 12 
2021 2 3 7 12 
2022 7 0 9 16 
2023 12 1 14 27 
Total 29 5 33 67 
 
 
101 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/2192/Rev.2  and the report will be  contained in 
G/SPS/R/ 112. Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_1803202410_e/sps_1803202410_e.htm . 
102 More information is available at: https://standardsfacility.org/facilitating -safe-trade -stdf-solutions -
strengthen -sps-capacity -developing -and-least-developed . 
103 G/SPS/GEN/521 , latest revision.  
104 This category also includes the Advanced SPS Course.  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Table 2: SPS technical assistance activities per region  (1994 – 31 December  2023) 
 
Region  Type of activity   
Total  National 
seminar  (Sub)Regional 
Workshop  Other  
Africa  65 30 32 127 
Arab and Middle East Countries  19 13 6 38 
Asia and the Pacific  49 20 29 98 
Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia  19 9 10 38 
Europe  1 3 8 12 
Latin America and the Caribbean  68 28 12 108 
North America  1 - 1 2 
Global  - - 57105 57 
Total  222 103 155 480 
 
8.3  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  
8.28.   The STDF is a global partnership that promotes improved food safety, animal and plant health 
capacity in developing countries. This helps imports and exports to meet SPS requirements for trade, 
based on international standards. The STDF supports and contributes to broader sust ainable 
development goals, such as sustainable economic growth, poverty reduction and food security. 
Established by WTO, together with FAO, WHO, WOAH and the World Bank Group, the STDF brings 
together diverse stakeholders from across agriculture, health, t rade and development. It provides 
an Aid for Trade platform for organizations to come together to discuss SPS capacity needs and 
priorities, share experiences and good practice, and mobilize resources. In addition, the STDF 
provides funding to beneficiarie s for the development and implementation of SPS projects. Through 
convening and connecting stakeholder across its knowledge and project work, and piloting and 
learning from innovative, collaborative and cross cutting approaches, the STDF influences and 
catalyses SPS capacity development globally. The WTO houses the Secretariat and manages the 
STDF trust fund .106 At every regular meeting, the STDF informs the Committee of its most recent 
activities .107 An overview of all STDF Annual Reports is available here.108 
8.29.   In its reports to the Committee, the STDF provides information on ongoing project and project 
preparation grants, as well as on new applications and upcoming deadlines. It also provides 
information on its knowledge platform. During the report period, the STDF highlighted, inter alia , 
its work on: (i) Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and voluntary Third-Party Assurance (vTPA) 
programmes; (ii) evidence -based approaches to prioritize SPS investments and inform SPS -decision 
making; (iii) Good Regulatory Practices to ensure SPS measures are "fit -for-purpose"; and 
(iv) trade  facilitation and SPS e -certification. In 2021, the STDF presented its film " Shaping a safer 
world ", which highlighted the importance of investing in SPS  capacity for developing countries as a 
global public good. It also shared several risk management reports on the impact of COVID -19 on 
STDF workstreams and SPS capacity development more broadly. In 2022, the STDF organized a 
series of webinars  exploring the challenges of climate change and emerging SPS  risks. It also briefed 
Members on a gender assessment across STDF's workstreams and presented a new Gender Action 
Plan. In 2023, the STDF organized a workshop on "Facilitating safe trade: STDF solutions to 
strengthen SPS capacity in deve loping and least developed countries" in the context of the MC12 
SPS Declaration Work Programme (see section 14   below) . The Secretariat also initiated an external 
learning assessment on the environment, biodiversity and climate change across STDF's work and 
SPS capacity development work led by other or ganizations.  
8.30.   As part of its role to share available know -how and SPS -related good practice, the STDF 
regularly issues publications  and briefing notes  on issues of interest, and organizes a range of 
thematic events  each year, including durin g the Committee  week. Some examples in 2020 -2023 
include:  
• ePhyto: Solutions on safe trade in plants and plant products  (September 2020): webinar 
highlighting the  benefits of electronic phytosanitary certification and introducing the ePhyto 
 
105 This category also includes the Advanced SPS Course.  
106 More information on the STDF a nd its activities, including projects and project preparation grants, is 
available on the STDF website ( http://www.standardsfacility.org ). Members can also subscribe to the STDF 
mailing list to receive news on relevant activities  here. 
107 Reports submitted by the STDF in 2020-23 are available here. 
108 https://standardsfacility.org/stdf -annual -reports/ . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Solution, established by the IPPC with STDF funding and support, in collaboration with 
international organizations, development partners and industry associations ; 
• Aid for Trade: Investing in Safe Trade Systems to Protect Health and Market Access  
(March  2021): discussion  with agriculture, health, trade and development experts on 
investments in safe trade systems and scaling up assistance for developing countries to 
support economic recovery after COVID -19; 
• Systems Approaches in Food Safety and Plant Health  (June 2021): webinar, organized with 
the World Bank Gr oup, to learn about the concept, benefits and challenges of systems 
approaches ; 
• Good Regulatory Practices  (November 20 21): Launch  of the STDF Guide on Good Regulatory 
Practices (GRPs)109 to help improve the quality and effectiveness of SPS measures and 
ensure that SPS measures are fit for purpose ; 
• Exploring SPS Technical Assistance for Francophone Africa  (March 2022): focusing on two 
STDF -funded projects – maize in Burkina Faso and Penja pepper in Cameroon – speakers 
explored the impact of SPS technical assistance in increasing exports and  supporting long -
term socioeconomic benefits ; 
• Workshop on the MC12 SPS Declaration  (March 2023): speakers from development partne rs 
and beneficiaries highlighted a range of good practices across STDF's work to improve SPS 
capacity in developing and least developed countries ; and  
• Why Does Gender Matter for SPS Compliance  (July 2023):  this event focused on the benefits 
and potential of gender mainstreaming in the context of SPS measures and capacity 
development to promote inclusive trade, in support of the Sustainable Development Goals . 
8.31.   Throughout the period 2020 -2023, and also in the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work 
Programme  (see section  14  below) , several developed and developing Members extensively 
expressed their support to the STDF and their appreciation for the work undertaken. An independent 
external evaluation of STDF's work programme was initiated i n October 2023 to objectively assess 
the results and impact achieved by the partnership and capture key lessons learned. The final report 
will be published in May 2024 and shared with the Committee . 
9  SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT (ARTICLE 10)  
9.1.  Special a nd differential treatment continues to be a standing agenda item, although it remains 
infrequently used by Members. In 2020 -22, no Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
9.2.  Members, however, had extensive discussions on the topic of special and differe ntial treatment 
in the context of thematic group 5 of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme (see 
section  14  below). In parallel to these discuss ions, in March 2023, the Secretariat presented on the 
work undertaken by the Committee to date on Articles 9 -10 of the SPS Agreement .110 In relation to 
this presentation, Colombia underscored the importance of raising awareness about available 
mechanisms and the need for an increased participation of developing country and LDC Members. 
Ecuador and Paraguay echoed Colombia's intervention, w ith Paraguay stressing the importance of 
effective implementation of Articles 9 -10 and of technical assistance and cooperation. 
The European  Union  and Paraguay thought thematic group 5 of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work 
Programme provided a good opportunity to look at these issues.  
9.3.  The Secretariat has also kept the Committee  informed of related discussions in the  CTD-SS. 
In July and November 2023, the Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to the proposals on the 
SPS and TBT Agreements introduced by the G -90 in the CTD -SS.111 In November  2023, 
the Committee was also informed that a thematic session on the proposals had been held in the 
CTD-SS to discuss the S&D treatment in the SPS and TBT Agreements, Committee -related work, 
 
109 The guide is available at: https://standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_GRP_Guide_EN.pdf . 
110 The presentation was circulated as document RD/SPS/226 . 
111 JOB/TN/CTD/3 , JOB/TN/CT D/3/Corr.1 , JOB/TNC/110 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 27 - 
 
  transparency obligations,  the ePing SPS&TBT Platform , and transparency -related capacity building 
work.112 The European  Union  and the United  States  indicated that they participated in the 
discussions in the CTD -SS and  called for  enhanced coordination and exchanges of information going 
forward. They saw the SPS Committee  as the appropriate forum to discuss issues related to its 
functioning and praised the opportunity for discussion provided by the SPS  Declaration Work 
Programme. The United  States  also drew the Committee's attention to document G/SPS/GEN/2162 , 
which highlighted activities on better integration of developing countries in the SPS and 
TBT Agreements and explored challenges and opportunities of using digital tools, the collaborative 
role of enquiry points, and th e progress made by developing countries towards compliance with the 
SPS and TBT Agreements.  
9.4.  Subsequently, at the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference (MC13), Ministers adopted the 
Declaration on the precise, effective, and operational implementation of specia l and differential 
treatment provisions of the Agreement  on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (MC13 S&D Declaration).113 
9.5.  In the context of the Sixth Review , Canada, the European  Union , New Zealand, and 
the United  Kingdom  submitted proposals for discussion on technical assistance and S&D 
treatment.114 
10  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT  (ARTICLE 11)  
10.1.   Article 11 of the SPS Agreement  indicates that the Dispute Settlement Understanding applies 
to SPS disputes an d provides for the consultation of experts when a dispute involves scientific or 
technical issues. As of 30 April 2024 , 624 disputes had formally been raised under the WTO's dispute 
settlement system . In 5 4 of these disputes , there were alleged violation s of the SPS Agreement  and, 
of these  54 disputes , 29 resulted in the establishment of a dispute settlement panel  (in some 
instances, a single panel consider ed two or more complaints  relating to the same matter) . 
10.2.   In 2020 -24115, five new SPS -related disputes w ere initiated  (DS599 , DS607 , DS610 , DS613 , 
DS624 ), two of which led to the establishment of a panel : DS599  where the panel process is ongoing 
and DS610  where the panel process has been suspended . In addition, two panel report s dealing with  
SPS dispute s were circulated : one  panel report  was appealed ( DS484 ) and the other one  was 
adopted ( DS524 ). In two other  SPS dispute s, the panel was requested to suspend its work and the 
authority for panel establishment lapsed ( DS475  and DS589 ). Finally, one  mutually agreed solution 
was notified in DS430 . 
10.3.   This is the list of disputes where a panel was established to consider claims under the 
SPS Agreement , with additional information in Appendix  C116: 
1. Canada and the United  States ' complaint against Australia's measures affecting the 
importation of salmon ( DS18  and DS21 ); 
2. Canada and the United  States ' complaint against the European Communities' measures 
concerning meat and meat products (ban on meat treated with growth -promoting hormones, 
DS26  and DS48 ); 
3. The United  States ' complaint against J apan's measures affecting agricultural products 
(requirement to test different fruit varieties with regard to treatment efficacy, DS76 ); 
4. Ecuado r's complaint against Türkiye's import procedures for fresh fruit ( DS237 ); 
 
112 JOB/TN/CTD/5 . 
113 WT/L/1191  and WT/MIN(24)/36 . 
114 G/SPS/W /349 (Canada), G/SPS/W/353  (the European Union), G/SPS/W/348  (New Zealand), and 
G/SPS/W/351  (the United Kingdom).  
115 As of 3 0 April  2024.  
116 Four disputes that included claims under the SPS Agreement  are not listed here as the panels (and the 
Appellate Body) made findings principally under the TBT Agreement. These cases concerned Canada's complaint 
against the European Communities' ban on asbe stos and products containing asbestos ( DS135 ), Canada and 
Mexico's complaint s against the United States' country of origin (COOL) labelling r equirements ( DS384  and 
DS386 ), and Indonesia's complaint against the United States' ban on clove cigarettes ( DS406 ). G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 28 - 
 
  5. The United  States ' complaint against Japan's measures affecting th e importation of apples 
(due to fire blight concerns, DS245 ); 
6. The Philippines' complaint against Australia's measures affecting the importatio n of fresh 
fruit and vegetables ( DS270); 
7. The European Communities' complaint against Australia's quarantine procedures ( DS287); 
8. Argentina, Canada,  and the United  States ' complaint against EC measures affecting the 
approval and marketing of biotech products ( DS291 , DS292 , and DS293); 
9. New Zealand's complaint against Australia's measures affecting the importation of apples 
(due to concerns related to fire blight and two other plant  pests, DS367 ); 
10. The United  States ' complaint against the European Communities' measures affecting poultry 
meat and poultry meat products ( DS389 ); 
11. Canada's complaint against Korea's restrictions on bovine meat and meat products ( DS391 ); 
12. China's complaint against the United  States ' measures affecting imports of poultry ( DS392 ); 
13. The United  States ' complaint against India's measures concerning the importation of certain 
agricultural products (due to concerns about avian influenza , DS430 ); 
14. Argentina's complaint against the United  States ' measures affecting the importation of 
animals, meat and other animal products (due to c oncerns about foot  and mouth disease, 
DS447 ); 
15. The European  Union 's complaint against Russian measures affecting the importation of live 
pigs, pork, pork products and certain other commodities (due to concerns about  
African  Swine  Fever , DS475 ); 
16. Brazil's complaint against certain Indon esian measures on the importation of chicken meat 
and chicken products ( DS484 ); 
17. Japan's complaint against Korea's import bans, testing and cer tification requirements for 
radionuclides (DS495 ); 
18. Mexico's complaint against Costa Rica's measures concerning the importation of fresh 
avocados ( DS524 ); 
19. Canada's complaint against China's measures concerning the importation of canola seed 
(DS589 ); 
20. Costa Rica's complaint against Panama's measures concerning the importation of certain 
products, including strawberries, dairy products, bovine, pork, poultry and turkey meat 
products, fish food, fresh pineapple, and plantains and bananas ( DS599 ); and  
21. The European  Union 's complaint against China's measures conc erning trade in goods (a 
series of measures allegedly imposed to restrict trade from or to Lithuania or linked to 
Lithuania, DS610 ). 
11  SPECIFIC  TRADE CONCERNS  (STC s) (ARTICLES 12.1 -12.2)  
11.1.   Part of each Committee meeting is devoted to the consideration of STCs raised by Members. 
Since 2000 , the Secretariat  has been providing information annually on  STCs.117 The statistics below 
are derived from the Trade Concerns Database , and include all issues which have been raised at 
Committee meetings as of December 2023 . 
11.2.   Altogether, 575 STCs were raised in 1995-2023. Chart  2 shows the number of new concerns 
raised each year; 128 new concerns have been raised in 2020-23. Chart 3 categorizes the trade 
concer ns raised since 20 20 into food safety, animal health, plant health , and other issues . 
It is important to keep in mind, however, that some issues may relate to more than one of these 
categories. Concerns relating to zoonoses, for example, may relate to measures taken with both 
animal health and food safety objectives. For the purposes of this graph, a single objective was 
designated as the principal concern . In 2020-23, 35% of STCs relate d primarily to food safety, 
 
117 Document series G/SPS/GEN/204 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 29 - 
 
  30% to plant health, 20% to animal health, and 1 5% to other issues , such as certification  
requirements or translation s. 
Chart  2 – Numbe r of new STCs raised  (1995 -2023)  
 
Chart  3 – STCs  in 2020 -23, by subject  
 
 
11.3.   Developing country Members have been participating actively under this agenda item in the 
Committee. Chart 4 indicates that in 2020-23, developin g Members raised 84 trade concerns 
(on many occasions more than one Member raised, supported or mai ntained an i ssue) compared to 
51 raised by developed Members. A developing Member supported another Member raising an STC 
in 29 cases, similar to developed Members and two for LDCs. For 53 STCs, the measure at issue was 
maintained by a developed Member and , in 76 instances, it was maintained by a developing Member. 
One STC regarding a measure maintained by an LDC  was raised. Chart 5 shows the number of new 
issues raised in 2020-23 by each category of Member.118 
 
118 As any individual trade concern can potentially be raised by more than one Member, this explains the 
apparent double -counting shown in Charts 4 and 5 compared with the overall count of the 128 STCs raised 
between 2020 and 2023 . 
G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Chart 4 – Participation  in STCs , by development status (2020 -23) 
 
Chart 5 – Number of new STCs raised , by development status ( 2020 -23) 
 
 
11.4.   At the beginning of Committee meetings, Members sometimes withdraw STCs from the 
agenda prior to its adoption. In 2020-23, 7 Members withdrew a total of 20 STCs and , in 4 instances, 
a Member removed its participation in an STC that it had previously indicated it would raise or 
support . This may suggest that bilateral negotiations prior to Committee meetings contribute d to 
easing  trade frictions.  
11.5.   Members are regularly invited to report on resolved issues. In 2020, the Secretariat contacted 
44 Members to seek information regarding the status (resolved, partially resolved , or not resolved) 
of STCs that had not been discussed since O ctober 2017: 35 STCs of these STCs were reported as 
resolved and 42 STCs as partially resolved.119 A similar exercise was undertaken in 2022, when the 
Secretariat contacted 37 Members to seek information regarding the status of STCs that had not 
been discussed since November 2020: 31 of these STCs were reported as resolved and 14  STCs as 
partially reso lved.120 In addition , in November 2021 Mexico reported on the resolution of  STC ID 515, 
"Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments". I n March 2023, the 
 
119 The res ult of this exercise was contained in document RD/SPS/114 , which also included the results of 
similar exercises undertaken in 2013 and 2017.  
120 The result of this exercise was contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2062/Rev.1 , which also included 
the results of similar exercises undertaken in 2013, 2017 , and 2020.  
G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 31 - 
 
  European  Union  reported on the partial resolution of STC ID 493 , "Non -publication of US final rule 
on importation of sheep, goats and certain other ruminants" and, in July 2023 , Brazil provided 
information about the resolution of STC ID 489 , Mexico's import restrictions on pork, and  STC 
ID 482, Peru's import restrictions on pork . Chart 6 indicates that 230 trade concerns have been 
reported resolved  out of the 575 trade concerns ra ised over the 29 years (i.e. 1995 -2023) . A total 
of 68 issues were reported as resolved in 2020-23. Eighty -one STCs have been reported as partially 
resolved since 1995 . In these instances, trade may have been allowed for selected products or by 
some of the  importing Members maintaining the measure in question. Overall, m ore than 54% of 
the total number of STCs discussed in the Committee  have been resolved, or partially resolved. No 
solutions have been reported for the remaining 2 64 trade concerns, although some of these may 
have been resolved without the Committee being made aware of these developments.  In September 
2024 the Secretariat will contact Members again to seek information regarding the status of STCs 
that have not been discussed since November 202 2. 
Chart 6 – Status of STCs  
 
 
11.6.   In 2023, in order to balance the efficiency and quality of the interactions on STC s, 
the Chairperson remind ed Members that there were tools to add value to discussions. 
The Secretariat clarified that Members' oral interventions in the  Committee meeting s were reflected 
in the summary report s of meetings in a summarized version. Where  Members mentioned previous 
statements or a statement in eAgenda in their oral interventions, this mention would also be included 
in the  summary report. Members also had the option of circulating their statements as a 
GEN document. In this case, a hyperlink to that document was added in the summary report in 
addition to a short summary of the oral intervention.  
11.7.   As part of the discussions o n improving the functioning of the Committee  (see 
section  15.3  below) , some Members regretted that sometimes, detailed statements were made  
without sufficient prior notice , hindering the preparation of targeted responses. While some Members 
supported the suggestions to promote advance communication of information, other Members 
cautioned against being too prescriptive regarding the informatio n to be provided when raising  an 
STC. Some noted the practice of circulating responses to questions. While it was further observed 
that Members could hold bilateral meetings, Members underscored that advance information, 
especially for new STCs, was import ant and allowed for an effective STC process.  Members also 
explored the possibility  of restructuring the order of agenda items to have discussions on substantive 
items before STCs, similar to the approach  in the CTG. 
12  AD HOC  CONSULTATIONS  (ARTICLE 12.2)  
12.1.   Article 12.2 states that the Committee "shall encourage and facilitate ad hoc consultations or 
negotiations among Members on specific sanitary or phytosanitary issues". In 2014, the Committee 
adopted the Recommended Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the R esolution of Specific Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Issues among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2  (the ad hoc  consultations 
procedure, G/SPS/61 ). 
G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 32 - 
 
  12.2.   Brazil requested consultations under the ad hoc  consultations procedure on two occasions . 
In 2022, Brazil requested the Good Offices of the Chair regarding issues pertaining to export s of 
swine meat to Mexico, related to  STCs ID 263, ID 271 , and ID 489 .121 Mexico rejected the request 
because it had published the requirements to be met for the importation of pork from Brazil to 
Mexico and thus was of the view th at it was not necessary to continue with the Good Offices of the 
Chair.122 The underlying  STC ID 489  was later reported  as resolved. In 2023, Brazil requested the 
Good Offices of the Chair regarding issues pertaining to  the export ation of meat, pork, poultry, milk 
and dairy products, genetic material and live cattle to Nigeria123, an issue previously discussed under  
STC ID 52 3. Nigeria did not provide an official written response to Brazil's request, but indicated to 
the Committee that other fora would be more appropriate , and hence consultations did not go 
ahead .124  
12.3.   These were the first tim es that the ad hoc  consultations procedure was used  by a Member . 
Further i nformation can be found in the annual reports prepared by the Secretariat on the use of the  
ad hoc consultations  procedure , available here.125 
13  COOPERATION WITH CODEX , WOAH , AND THE IPPC  (ARTICLE 12.3)  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth Review126: 
• Codex, OIE and IPPC are invited to provide factual information on their standards, guidelines 
and recommendations in the SPS Committee  meetings .  
• The Committee encourages SPS Committee  representatives to consult with their 
government's Codex, OIE and IPPC experts for advice when a specific trade concern arises 
regarding a Codex, OIE or IPPC standard, guideline or recommendation . 
• The Committee may continue to consider the role of Codex, OIE and IPPC with respect to 
specific  trade concerns.  
 
13.1.   In the Committee, the ISSBs  provide relevant information on any work related to the 
SPS Agreement  under the agenda item on "Information Sharing". Relevant documents are listed 
here. Codex, WOAH , and the IPPC also participated in various thematic sessions an d workshops in 
2020-23 and played an important role in discussions in the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration 
Work Programme  (see section 14  below) . In addition, the ISSBs held the following side events on 
the margins of Committee meetings  (see also Appendix  B): 
• WOAH  announced the launch of two new publications: Scientific and Technical Review on 
"Ensuring Safe Trade in Animals and Animal Products" and Technical Item 2020 on "Required 
Competences of Veterinary Services for International Trade" (November 2020);  
• The IPP C organized the event " Promoting Safe Trade in the International Year of Plant 
Health " (March 2021); and  
• Codex, WOAH , and the IPPC presented their observatory projects in the event "Monitoring 
the Implementation of International Standards" (March 2023).  
13.2.   In 2020-23, several Members highlighted the importance of having the ISSBs  attending 
Committee meetings in person, given the relevance of their work to the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement . 
13.3.   In the context of the Sixth Review , the European  Union  and New Zealand  submitted proposals 
for discussion on cooperation with  the ISSBs and observer organizations .127 
 
121 G/SPS/GEN/2078 . 
122 G/SPS/GEN /2079 . 
123 G/SPS/GEN/2189 . 
124 G/SPS/R/111 , paras. 2.22 -2.26. 
125 G/SPS/GEN/1457 , G/SPS/GEN/1 513, G/SPS/GEN/1573 , G/SPS/GEN/1642 , G/SPS/GEN/1729 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1829 , G/SPS/GEN/1954 , G/SPS/GEN/2 057, and G/SPS/GEN/2154 . 
126 G/SPS/64 , para. 3.12. (italics original) . 
127 The European Union ( G/SPS/W/353 ) and New Zealand ( G/SPS/W/348 ). G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 33 - 
 
  14  MC12 SPS DECLARATION AND RELATED WORK PROGRAMME  
14.1.   In February 2020, Brazil, Canada, and the United  States  submitted a draft proposal for a 
Ministerial Declaration: Responding to Modern SPS Challenges.128 The text underline d that, on its 
25th anniversary, the SPS Agreement  and its provisions remained as relevant as in 1995 and 
continued to safeguard the right of Members to take measures necessary for the protection of 
human, animal, or plant life or health.  
14.2.   The proposal was discussed at every meeting of the Committee from March 2020 to 
March  2022, gaining support from a growing number of Members. The final version of the text was 
adopted at MC12 as document WT/MIN(22)/27  (MC12 SPS Declaration).  
14.3.   Through the MC12 SPS Declara tion, the Ministerial Conference instructed the Committee to 
further enhance the implementation of the SPS Agreement  in an effort to better manage issues 
related to international trade in food, animals, and plants by undertaking a work programme, open  to 
all Members and Observers, consisting of new efforts to identify: (i) challenges in the implementation 
of the SPS Agreement  and the mechanisms available to address them; and (ii)  the impacts of 
emerging challenges on the application of the SPS Agreement . Recognizing the instrumental role of 
the Committee in advancing the implementation of the SPS Agreement , and without relaunching the 
negotiation of new obligations, nor re -opening or amending the SPS Agreement , the MC12 SPS 
Declaration instructed the Committ ee to explore, through a work programme, how the 
implementation and application of the SPS Agreement  could support different themes agreed on by 
Members (the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme). The outcomes of the MC12 SPS Declaration 
Work Programme and key findings and actions undertaken would be reported to MC13 with 
recommendations, as appropriate.  
14.4.   A process for the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme was adopted in November 2022.129 
A dedicated webpage  "SPS Declaration at MC12" was created to keep track of all related 
information.130 All documents pertaining to the MC12 SPS Declaration are tagged with the keyword 
"MC12 Work Programme" a nd can be retrieved through the ePing SPS&TBT Platform . 
14.5.   The MC12 SPS Declaration identified several themes for discussion:  
• How to facilitate global food security and more sustainable food systems, including through 
sustainable growth and innovation in agricultural production and international trade, and 
through the use of international standards, guidelines, and recommendations developed by 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission , the World Organisation for Animal Health and the 
International Plant Protection Convention as the basis of harmonized SPS measures to 
protect human, animal or plant life or health;  
• How to support basing SPS measures on scientific evidence and principles,  including where 
international standards, guidelines, or recommendations do not exist or are not appropriate; 
and how to promote the use by Members of principles employed by the international 
standard setting bodies for considering scientific uncertainty i n risk analysis;  
• How to enhance the safe international trade in food, animals and plants and products thereof 
through the adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions, including pest - or disease -
free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence w hich can strengthen Members' ability 
to protect plant and animal life or health through efforts to limit the spread of pests such as 
the Mediterranean fruit fly, diseases such as African  Swine  Fever , disease -carrying 
organisms, or disease -causing organisms ; 
• How to encourage cooperation with observer organizations that support the work of the 
SPS Committee  and the international standard setting bodies through technical exchanges 
and assistance in the context of this work programme;  
 
128 The initial proposal is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1758 . 
129 G/SPS/W/330/Rev.1 . 
130 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_declaration_mc12_e.htm . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 34 - 
 
  • How to increase participat ion of and support for the special needs of developing and least 
developed country Members in the development and application of SPS measures; and in 
particular, to increase awareness of and sensitivity to the impacts of SPS measures on the 
export possibil ities of such Members;  
• Other topics as identified over the course of the work programme or as a result of emerging 
sanitary or phytosanitary challenges or risks worldwide.131 
2.3. In June 2022, Members decided to organize thematic groups to discuss each of the five themes 
specifically identified in the MC12 SPS Declaration. The thematic groups were not expected to make 
decisions. Their purpose was to allow discussions leading to observations and possible proposals for 
further discussion in the Committee. The following stewards were assigned, in consultation with the 
Chairperson and taking Members' views into account, to facilitate discussions in each of the thematic 
groups:  
• Group 1: Mr Jônathas José Silva da Silveira (Brazil) and Mr Knut Berdal (Norway)  
• Group  2: Mr Boitshoko Ntshabele (South Africa)  
• Group 3: Ambassador Sofía Boza (Chile) (replaced by Mr Miguel Donatelli, Argentina, in 
March 2023)  
• Group 4: Mr Geoff Richards ( United  Kingdom ) 
• Group 5: Ms Joanna Grainger (Australia) and Ms María Cecilia Gutiérrez (Ecuador)  
14.6.   The thematic groups met on the margins of the Committee, as well as in intersessionally.132 
Following an initial meeting in English convened by the Secretariat, meetings were mostly held in 
hybrid format with interpretation, in order to increase participation and facilitate pre -meeting 
preparations. In November 2022, Members agreed to cluster intersessional meetings of all the 
thematic groups within the same week to streamline the process. Similarly, Members agreed to 
harmonize deadlines for the submission of written inputs, that would feed into the discussions in the 
groups. As requested by Members, all the inputs were compiled and systematically posted on the 
dedicated webpage in the three official languages. It was also agreed that the stewards would 
circulate an agenda for each meeting of the thematic groups. This agenda would be based on 
previous discussions as well as on the inputs submitted by Members.  
14.7.   The proposed process foresaw the submission by stewards of proposals/summaries of the 
work in the thematic groups133 for further discussion in the Committee, as well as of reports on the 
discussions held in their groups.134 All documents were made available on the dedicated webpage . 
14.8.   Groups heard from a variety of stakeholders, including the Secretariat, Members, the ISSBs, 
producers, international organizations and secretariats, observer organizations to the Committee  
(on the basis of a set of written questions) and the STDF. The Secretariat was also requested to 
prepare several documents, including: a report on relevant activities and processes relating to 
sustainability in different WTO bodies; a compilation of infor mation from previous workshops and 
thematic sessions on scientific evidence, risk, risk assessment, uncertainty and appropriate level of 
protection, including some aspects of transparency; an analysis of the relevant provisions of the 
SPS Agreement , the Gu idelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article  6 (G/SPS/48 ), 
trends in notifications and STCs, and relevant recommendations from the reviews of the operation 
and implementation of the SPS Agreement ; an explanation of the procedures, expectations and  a 
brief history of observer organizations at the Committee ; and a presentation on the actions 
undertaken by the Committee regarding Articles 9 -10 of the SPS Agreement . All the relevant 
documents and presentations were made available on the dedicated webpage . 
14.9.   The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a factual summary containing 
information on the discussions held by Members during  the MC12 SPS Declaration Work 
Programme.135 The factual summary was adopted at the November 2023 Committee meeting. 
 
131 WT/MIN(22)/27 , para. 8.  
132 Relevant summary reports are available here. 
133 The proposals/summaries are contained in documents G/SPS/W/332  (Group 1), G/SPS/W/333  
(Group 2), G/SPS/W/336  (Group  3), G/SPS/W/334  (Group 4) and G/SPS/ W/335  (Group 5).  
134 The summaries are contained in documents G/SPS/W/339  (Group 1), G/SPS/W/340  (Group 2), 
G/SPS/W/341  (Group 3), G/SPS/W/342  (Group 4) and G/SPS/W/343  (Group 5).  
135 The factual summary is available in document G/SPS/70 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 35 - 
 
  In order to fulfil the mandate established in paragraph 10 of the MC12 SPS Declaration to address 
the outcomes of the work programme, and re port on key findings and action undertaken to MC13 
with recommendations, as appropriate, the Committee requested that Mr Tang -Kai Wang, the former 
Chairperson of the Committee  who was facilitating all MC12 SPS Declaration related discussions, 
prepare a dra ft report. The draft report contained seven findings and a recommendation for the 
Committee to continue targeted discussions and reflections on the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement .136 One Member objected to the adoption of this draft report. Upon Member s' 
request, the Chairperson of the Committee , Mr Tayutic Mena, prepared a factual report of the MC12 
SPS Work Programme under his own responsibility.137 He noted that Members engaged actively and 
constructively throughout the Work Programme, and heard from a wide variety of stakeholders, 
including government officials, private sector, and international organizations. He  also indicated that 
during 2024, the Committee would  continue its discussions on the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  in the context of t he recently launched Sixth Review  of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement . At MC13, Ministers took note of all the reports submitted by 
the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies.  
14.10.   In the context of the Sixth Review , Australia, Canada, the European  Union , and 
the United  States  submitted further proposals to continue discussions on modern challenges and 
emerging risks.138 
15  OTHER TOPICS  
15.1  Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)  
15.1.   Since 2018, several Members have been raising concerns in relation to the European  Union 's 
review of its legislation on veterinary medicinal products, identified under  STC ID 446 . Responding 
to these calls, the European  Union  has emphasized the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 
on Veterinary Medicines as a pivotal step in combating AMR. This legislation aligns with the European 
One Health Action Plan, endorsed by global bodies like the FAO, WHO, and  WOAH . Moreover, 
the European  Union  introduced regulations on  medicated feed to complement the Regulation on 
Veterinary Medicines, with a focus on fostering innovation, ensuri ng safe production, and combat ing 
AMR. The European  Union  underscored the necessity of international collaboration to effectively 
address AMR.  
15.2.   In 2020, Codex informed the Committee about progress made during the seventh  session of 
the ad hoc  Codex Intergov ernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance, held in 
December  2019.139 The task force continued its work towards revising the code of practice to contain 
and minimize foodborne AMR, as well as developing guidelines for monitoring and surveillance of 
foodborne AMR.  
15.3.   In 2021, Canada shared its international initiatives to support the development of standards, 
guidance, or recommendations within the ISSBs. Notably, Canada allocated approximately 
CAN $1,7 million in funding to support ISSB endeavours, includ ing the FAO's development of risk 
assessment guidance for antimicrobial use in the horticulture sector.  
15.4.   WOAH informed of the adoption of Resolution No. 14, signalling WOAH's commitment to 
engage in the One Health Global Effort to Control AMR. This included  the establishment of a 
permanent working group on AMR aimed at supporting the implementation of WOAH's Global 
Strategy on AMR and the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials. Subsequently in 2021, WOAH informed the 
Committee about its work on AMR, directing Members  to the report of the w orking group on AMR.140 
Moreover in 2022, WOAH referred to the establishment of a new WOAH database on antimicrobials 
approved for use in animals and the creation of online training modules for veterinary services.141 
 
136 The Committee draft report is available in document G/SPS/W/344/Rev.3 . 
137 The Chairperson's report is availab le in document G/SPS/71 . 
138 G/SPS/W/361  (Australia), G/SPS/W/349  (Canada), G/SPS/W/353  and G/SPS/W/354  
(the European  Union), and G/SPS/W/350  (the United States).  
139 G/SPS/GEN/1790 . The report is available at: https://www.woah.org/en/what -we-
do/standards/standard -setting -process/working -groups/working -group -on-antimicrobial -resistance/#ui -id-3. 
140 G/SPS/GEN/1887 . 
141 G/SPS/GEN /2075 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 36 - 
 
  15.5.   In 2022, Codex highlighted the work of its task force on AMR, including the development of 
the Code of Practice to contain foodborne AMR and guidelines for integrated monitoring and 
surveillance of foodborne AMR.142 
15.6.   In the same year, IICA reported on the 10th edition of the WOAH Strategy Session, which had 
been h eld virtually in April 2022, jointly organized with the USDA.143 This session saw participation 
from 61 delegates representing 22 countries, discussing various matters , including AMR.  
15.7.   In 2023, the Russian Federation provided insights into the outcomes of th e International 
Conference on Food Safety and AMR held in Moscow in December 2022. The Conference highlighted 
the importance of food safety as a key aspect of food quality and stressed the international 
community's need to address challenges related to AMR  and contaminants in food. 
The Russian  Federation also reported on its technical assistance activities aimed at supporting 
countries in the Eurasian region to develop and implement national strategies and action plans to 
address AMR risks.  
15.8.   Also in 2023, th e European Union announced the adoption of a recommendation aimed at 
enhancing EU actions to combat AMR in a One Health approach, complementing the existing 2017 
EU One Health Action Plan against AMR.144 One of the main objectives of the recommendation was 
to foster a prudent use of antimicrobials through a series of voluntary measures, with the aim of 
reducing the risk that microorganisms would become resistant to medical intervention.  
15.9.   In the same year, ECOWAS shared updates on the development of a technica l document on 
AMR to support the implementation of AMR action plans in West Africa and the Sahel.145 
The IPPC informed the Committee of its ongoing work on One Health and AMR, including the launch 
of the IPPC observatory survey on AMR to gather information on antimicrobial products used in plant 
production and protection, with the aim of better understanding the associated risks.146 The study's 
first and second phases were both launched in 2023, with the results of the first phase presented to 
the CPM Bureau Strategic Planning Group in October 2023.147 
15.2  COVID -19 and SPS Issues  
15.10.   As a result of the COVID -19 pandemic -related lockdown, the Committee meeting scheduled 
for March 2020 was cancelled.148 In June 2020, the Committee held an informal information  sharing 
session on COVID -19 where the Secretariat, the STDF, Members, the ISSBs, and other relevant 
organizations with observer status presented actions undertaken in relation to COVID -19.149 
Subsequently, the June 2020 Committee  meeting was held through a combination of a virtual 
meeting with a written procedure150, using  SPS eAgenda  for the first time. Since November 2020, 
the Committee meetings have taken place in hybr id mode, with some delegates attending in person 
and others joining via the virtual platform  Interprefy . As restrictions were lifted, more delegates 
have been following the meetings in person and the number of interventions delivered online has 
been consid erable reduced.  
15.11.   Until June 2022, the agenda of informal and formal meetings included a standing item on 
"COVID -19 and SPS issues ", where the Secretariat, Members, the ISSBs and other observer 
organizations regularly reported on activities related to the pa ndemic.151 In June 2022, 
the Committee agreed to delete this agenda item for the next Committee  meeting , since it was no 
longer needed .152 Also in  June 2022, the Committee held a Thematic Session on the Use of Remote 
 
142 G/SPS/GEN/1993 . 
143 G/SPS/GEN/2033 . 
144 G/SPS/GEN/2143 . 
145 G/SPS/GEN/2124 . 
146 G/SPS/GEN /2137 . 
147 G/SPS/GEN/2169 . 
148 JOB/SPS/5/Rev.1/ Corr.1 . 
149 The programme is available  in document  G/SPS/GEN/1795  and the report is contained in 
G/SPS/R/98 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_covid_session_24620_e.htm . 
150 G/SPS/R/99  and G/SPS/R/99/Corr.1 . 
151 Relevant summary reports are available here. 
152 G/SPS/R/107 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 37 - 
 
  (Virtual) Audit and Verification in Regulatory Frameworks  (see paragraph 15.37.   below) , where the 
impact of COVID -19 was extensively discussed.  
15.12.   Since the start of the pandemic, Members  also raised  two STCs that refer red to COVID -19.153 
These relate d to trade restrictions or import procedures put in place maintained by China  in rela tion 
to COVID -19, where other Members were of the view that trade was restricted more than necessary 
for health  protection purposes and/or the measures might  be creating unjustified barriers to 
international trade.  
15.13.   During the pandemic, Members continued to  fulfil their transparency obligations , reaching a 
historic record number of notifications in 2020  (since the n surpassed) . The dedicated WTO COVID -19 
and world trade  webpage contains all COVID -19 related news as well as information on related WTO 
work, rep orts and events.154 SPS notifications and documents related to COVID -19 submitted since 
February 2020 can also be found there.  
15.14.   As of 31 December  2023, 31 Members have submitted a total of 133 COVID -19 related SPS 
documents, including notifications of new or changed SPS regulations and other communications,  
representing 25% of all COVID -19-related documents received by the WTO.155 Initially, the notified  
measures mainly related to restrictions on imports of animals or animal products and/or transit from 
affected areas and increased certification requirements. Many of these restrictions were 
subsequently lifted. While a few new restrictions were imposed at  a later stage, most notifications 
and communications submitted since the beginning of April 2020 relate d to measures taken to 
facilitate trade, representing about two thirds  of all notified measures. For example, some Members  
allowed temporary flexibility  for control authorities to use electronic versions or copies of veterinary 
and/or phytosanitary certificates  since the COVID -19 situation made the transmission of original 
paper certificates problematic. Some Members also reported a permanent move to elec tronic 
phytosanitary certification based on the IPPC ePhyto Solution. Similarly, some Members authorized 
virtual verifications of production conditions and of their trading partners' facilities. In some cases, 
the implementation period of the trade facilit ating measures was subsequently extended. The last 
COVID -19-related SPS notification was received in January 2023.  
15.15.   Additionally, 40 Members  jointly  submitted a request for the suspension  of the processes 
and entry into force of reductions of MRLs for plant  protection products in light of the COVID -19 
pandemic . This request  was discussed in the Committee in 2020 -21 (see section 15.5  below  on 
MRLs for plant protection products).  
15.16.   Since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, the two reports that the Secretariat produces 
twice a year in the context of the trade monitoring exercise156 have included information on 
COVID -19-related SPS measures.  An information note titled " Standards, regulations and COVID -19 
– What actions taken by WTO members " was first published in May 2020 and subsequently revised 
in December 2020. The note describ es standards and regulations notified by Members under the 
TBT and SPS Agreement s in 2020 in response to the pandemic, most of which affect trade in personal 
protective equipment (PPE), food, medical equipment, plant products and live animals. 
In November  2020, the note " Future resilience to diseases of animal origin: The role of trade " was 
published, summarizing current issues, status o f legal frameworks, and planned future actions to 
avoid the spread of zoonoses through trade. The information note included a sec tion on COVID -19. 
15.17.   At MC12 , held in June 2022, Members adopted a Ministerial Declaration on the 
WTO Response to the COVID -19 Pan demic and Preparedness for Future Pandemics, which included 
a stocktaking exercise of the work by WTO bodies on this topic.157 In October 2022, the Chairperson 
of the CTG requested the Chairpersons of the CTG subsidiary bodies to prepare a report on the 
WTO response to the pandemic, describing the activities of each Committee in the context of the 
 
153 STCs ID 487  and ID 488 . 
154 https://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/covid19_e/covid19_e.htm . 
155 WTO database, WTO members' notifications on COVID -19: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/notifications_e.htm . COVID -19-related SPS notifications can 
also be tracked through ePing SPS&TBT Platform  search and alert functions.  
156 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/trade_monitoring_ e.htm .  
157 WT/MIN(22)/31 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 38 - 
 
  pandemic over the two previous years.158 The report submitted by the Chairperson of the 
SPS Committee  is contained in document G/SPS/66 .159 
15.3  Fall Armyworm  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth Review160: 
• Members should continue to exchange experiences on efficient, predictable and science -
based regulatory approaches to fight fall armyworm that help to mitigate its effect on trade 
while saf eguarding human, animal and plant life or health and accounting for the specific 
needs of smallholder farms.  
• As appropriate, Members are encouraged to request technical assistance to support efforts 
to improve their integrated pest management strategies an d, where needed, their regulatory 
approach to pre -market approval and inspection systems.  
• 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 a ddress SPS 
challenges, in the SPS Committee  and, where appropriate, in the working group on approval 
procedures [...]. 
 
15.18.   In 2022, the United  States  reported on the seminar " Responding to Fall Armyworm – 
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Policy Approaches ", co-hosted by Uganda, that had been  
held in March of that year.161 Speakers had highlighted the importance of integrated pest 
management to control fall armyworm. The  United  States  noted that the lessons learn ed from the 
introduction of fall armyworm in Africa could be applicable to other parts of the world and considere d 
that additional efforts were needed to ensure that countries were well positioned to address pest 
outbreaks. The  United  States  acknowledged the role of the Committee  in helping to mitigate the 
impact of fall armyworm and other disruptive pests on food se curity and trade and encouraged 
Members to engage in the discussions of the Working Group on Approval Procedures (see 
section  7  above) to develop outcomes that would assist Members in addressing current and 
emerging issues.  
15.4  Improving the Functioning of the Committee  
15.19.   As part  of a collective initiative launched by the Ottawa Group, Brazil engaged in coordinating 
a consultation exercise to try and capt ure Members ' perceptions and wishes. In 2019, 
Brazil  submitted  a proposal  for draft working procedures to strengthen the consultative function of 
the Committee , based on the consultations .162 Some Members welcomed the proposal and supported 
the recommendations made to strengthen  the consultative function , while  making suggestions  for 
improvement . Certain  Members , however,  did not support moving forward with the proposed draft  
at that point . They  praised the current Committee arrangements, which u nderscored the desirability 
of consultation and flexibility among Members rather than setting binding rules for Committee 
procedures.  
15.20.   In the MC12 Outcome Document on MC12 implementation matters, Members agreed to 
undertake a comprehensive review of all of the WTO's functions  to be carried out through the 
General  Council and its subsidiary bodies.163 
15.21.   In October 2022, the Chairperson of the CTG requested the 14 Chairpersons of its subsidiary 
bodies to prepare a report on the current functioning of the Committees, describing the concrete 
actions of each Committee over the past years to improve its work  as well as proposals for 
improvements.164 The Chairperson  requested that s uch reports address the issues listed in the Annex 
 
158 JOB/CTG/18 . 
159 A full list of the previous reports submitted by the Chairs of CTG subsidiary bodies is available in 
document JOB/CTG/19/Rev.2 . 
160 G/SPS/64 , para. 5.16. (italics original) . 
161 G/SPS/GEN/2039 , jointly submitted with Paraguay.  
162 G/SPS/W/319 and its revisions . 
163 WT/MIN(22)/24 . 
164 JOB/CTG/18 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 39 - 
 
  to document JOB/CTG/16 , which ref erred to the areas under consideration by some Members  at that 
time. The "Report on the Current  Functioning of the SPS Committee ", circulated in December 2022,  
contained information on Committee practices (including the assistance to delegates, 
the organiz ation of Committee work and substantive work) as well as efforts to improve the work of 
the Committee (including changes to the agenda for formal meetings, discussions on the consultative 
function of the Committee , and Committee discussions in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic).165 
15.22.   In March 2023, several Members introduced their proposal , which identified challenges fac ed 
by delegations , proposed specific actions to improve preparation and participation in 
WTO Committees, and provide d a guide for a structured dialogue.166 These Members were of the 
view that while the SPS Committee  was already applying most of the suggestions, further 
improvements on the use of digital tools and eRegistration , as well as the potentia l implementation 
of a style manual could be incorporated. Paraguay proposed the organization of an informal meeting 
prior to the subsequent Committee meeting to explore the feasibility of the se ideas, a suggestion 
that was supported by Costa Rica. Informal  meetings took place in May and July 2023.167 
Members  discussed  STCs, eAgenda and other online tools, the order of agenda items, India's 
proposals contained in document WT/GC/W/874 , and the written report to the CTG, among other 
topics.  
15.23.   Also in March 2023, t he United  Kingdom  referred to the ideas put forward by the LDC Group 
in document JOB/GC/223/Rev.1  and encouraged other Committees to learn from the innovative 
initiatives undertaken by the SPS Committee . The Secretariat circulated a " Compilation of Input on 
the Functioning of Goods Bodies "168, as per a request  from the United  Kingdom . The United  States  
noted that practices in the SPS Committee  might not be applicable to other  WTO Committees  and 
indicated it would review information on discussions between the Secretariat and Members on the 
feasibility of the proposals. The European  Union , Switzerland, and the United  States  underscored 
the import ance of in person participation in meetings. In November 2023, Paraguay drew Members' 
attention to the document jointly submitted with the United  Kingdom  on enhancing clarity and 
accessibility of information.169 
15.24.   Chairpersons and Secretaries were requested t o organize discussions concerning the 
functioning of their respective Committees, to allow Members to identify possible areas for 
improvement and, subsequently, submit a report to the CTG describing these discussions and 
improvements introduced. The "Repor t on improvements in the functioning of the 
SPS Committee "170, circulated in October 2023, summarizes the discussions in the Committee and 
describes process es and proposals  and the improvement s on the functioning of the Committee 
(assistance to delegates, p lanning and organization of meetings, conduct of formal and informal 
meetings, digital tools used by the Committee and substantive work).  
15.5  Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for Plant Protection Products  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth Review171: 
• 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 dis cussions 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 
JPMR [Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues] , including increasing representative 
expert participation and other forms of support for the scientific bodies, and options for 
encouraging programmes to support submission of data from developing countries, 
 
165 G/SPS/65 . A full list of the previous reports submitted by the Chairs of CTG subsidiary bodies is 
available in JOB/CTG/19/Rev.2 , and were subsequently compiled by the Secretariat in a matrix 
(G/C/W/824/Rev.1 ). 
166 JOB/SPS/25  and revisions.  
167 A report of the discussions held is available in Annexes B and C of the summary report of the July 
2023 Committee meeting, G/SPS/R/110 . A presentation on improving the functioning  of the SPS Committee 
delivered by the Secretariat is available in RD/SPS/227 . 
168 JOB/CTG/26/Rev.1 . 
169 JOB/C TG/43 . 
170 G/SPS/69 . 
171 G/SPS/64 , para. 8.6. (italics original) . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 40 - 
 
  especially on minor crops. The Committee invites regu lar 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.  
• The Committee encourages Members to provide greater transparency and predict ability 
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 me aningfully into account when 
considering proposed changes on MRLs.  
• 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 init iatives on MRLs. The Committee notes that such information could provide the 
basis for other Members to implement similar activities at the national and regional levels to 
improve harmonization to Codex MRLs, as well as to regional MRLs, where no Codex 
standards exist, in order to facilitate trade.  
• 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 and 
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.  
 
15.25.   The C ommittee spent considerable time in  each meeting in 2020 -23 discussing issues related 
to MRLs. In 2020, several Members requested that, in light of the COVID -19 pandemic, 
the European  Union  suspend for a period of 12 months all review processes currently u nderway for 
MRLs as well as the entry into force of the all MRL reductions planned for the year .172 They also 
requested the European  Union , as well as other Members that were in the process of reviewing or 
modifying MRLs for more restrictive levels, to base  their MRLs on international standards, guidelines, 
and recommendations. This communication, which was initiated by 13 Members predominantly from 
Latin America in May 2020, got further support, reaching 40 co -sponsors by early 2021.173 
The communication was  discussed several times in the Committee in 2020 -21 under the 
"Information sharing" agenda item of Committee meetings.174 The Members involved were of the 
view that the European  Union  had decided to adopt a regulatory approach with a major impact on 
produc tion systems, without taking into account climatic and geographical circumstances or impact 
on food security and the livelihood of many. The European  Union  reported on actions taken to 
facilitate the continuation of trade, which included launching a number  of financial and technical 
assistance packages to support its partner countries. While willing to find suitable and innovative 
approaches to help partners fight the consequences of the COVID -19 pandemic, the European  Union  
considered the protection of public health to be a priority not to be compromised.175 Discussions on 
EU approaches to MRLs were a lso held and continued in the context of various STCs. Overall, 
in 2020-23, 23 STCs related to  MRLs.  
15.26.   In March 2022, the Committee held a Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to 
Pesticide MRLs, Including Substances not Approved for Use in an Im port Market176, based on a 
proposal by Australia, Colombia, Paraguay, and the United  States .177 The main objective of the 
thematic session was to explore different approaches used by Members to address issues associated 
with pesticide MRLs and provide an opp ortunity for experience sharing and identifying best practices 
with regard to facilitating safe trade. The thematic  session built on recent work by APEC in this area 
and provided Members an opportunity to learn from one another and gain private sector 
perspectives.  
 
172 G/SPS/GEN/1778  and revisions;  G/TBT/GEN/296  and revisions.  
173 G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.5  and G/TBT/GEN/296/Rev.5 . 
174 Similar discussions also took place in the TBT Committee and in the CTG.  
175 G/SPS/GEN/1814  and revisions.  
176 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1989/Rev.1  and the report is contained in 
Annex B of G/SPS/R/105 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematicsession220322_e.htm . 
177 G/SPS/GEN/1947 . In November 2020, the Committee had  also discussed  a proposal by China to 
organize  a thematic session on default MRLs . China, however, subsequently removed its proposal.  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 41 - 
 
  15.27.   Following the Secretariat's overview of key principles of the SPS Agreement  relevant to 
pesticide MRLs, relevant Committee work, and MRL -related STCs, Members and industry 
representatives discussed the economic case for addressing MRLs and the im pacts of risk -based and 
trade facilitative enforcement practices. Speakers looked at various case studies (e.g. on wheat and 
wine, almonds, and fresh produce more generally) and discussed issues pertaining to missing or low 
MRLs and costs associated with M RL compliance. Speakers subsequently discussed the role of Codex, 
looking at the work of the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and the 
Codex  Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), and experiences harmonizing with Codex MRLs. 
In this conte xt, the European  Union  provided an overview of the principles underpinning the 
EU pesticide MRL legislation, the process for implementation of Codex MRLs, EU assessment of 
Codex  MRL proposals and reasons that may justify EU reservations. Other intervention s highlighted 
the increasingly complex global patchwork of misaligned and missing MRLs faced by farmers, 
introduced data pertaining to MRL -related food waste, including data on food waste that could be 
avoided by using Codex MRLs, and stressed the need for  more regulatory coherence. There was also 
a dedicated session on the role of import tolerances, with an introduction to the APEC Import MRL 
Guideline for Pesticides and efforts to leverage the guideline for trade facilitation in ASEAN, followed 
by an expe rience sharing session on import tolerances from both the importing and exporting 
Member perspectives. The last session discussed MRL enforcement measures focused on Member 
and industry experiences with limits of detection and channels of trade/transition periods.  
15.28.   Further to this thematic session, several Members submitted a follow -up proposal.178 
The proponents drew attention to the increasing number of pesticide related STCs raised in 
the Committee. The  paper proposed four areas of focus for the Committee to explore, possibly 
through a dedicated working group: (i) approaches in which further international harmonization of 
MRLs could be encouraged in line with Codex MRLs; (ii) whether it is appropriate to  suggest that 
international guidance be developed on transition periods when import MRLs are modified; 
(iii) what further international efforts can be taken to support the establishment of import MRL 
systems;  and (iv) the role that international channels o f trade provisions could provide and whether 
it was appropriate to suggest that international guidance be developed.  Given the significant work 
associated with the MC12 SPS  Declaration Work Programme, the co -sponsors subsequently 
proposed to take up this t opic at a later time.  
15.29.   Other MRL -related discussions included:  
• in 2020 and 2021, the introduction by the United  States  of an US International Trade 
Commission's report on "Global Economic Impact of Missing and Low Pesticide Maximum 
Residue Levels", Volume  1 and Volume 2 . The report examine s current and emergin g 
challenges to global agricultural production from existing and evolving pest and disease 
pressures in different climates and regions, compares national and international policies for 
establishing pesticide MRLs, and explores the costs and effect of these  policies on trade.179 
In this context, the European  Union  regretted the lack of consideration of methods of 
productions that used less pesticides, questioned the modelling in the report and noted 
factual inaccuracies and misleading information regarding th e EU system for setting MRLs180; 
• in 2021, reporting on an APEC MRLs Harmonization Workshop, which had discussed best 
practices for the enforcement and risk management of MRLs and had explored approaches 
to facilitate international trade181; 
• in December 2022, information provided by the United  States  regarding the publication of 
the final rule "Pesticides: Expansion of Crop Grouping Program VI", expanding the number 
of commodities in several crop groups, including certain minor or specialty cr ops, covered 
by MRLs for new crop groups;  
• in November 2023, information provided on a two -part APEC Food Safety Cooperation Forum 
Workshop on Risk Communication Related to Maximum Residue Limits , aimed at 
 
178 G/SPS/GEN/2034 and its revisions . 
179 G/SPS/GEN/1842  and G/SPS/GE N/1883 . 
180 G/SPS/GEN/1855 . 
181 G/SPS/GEN/1884/Rev.1 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 42 - 
 
  strengthening capacity to conduct risk communicatio n and laying the groundwork for future 
cooperation and collaboration on this matter182; and  
• regular updates by Codex on the work of the CCPR in the context of MRLs.  
15.30.   In addition, in November  2020, an FAO side event was organized to introduce a recently 
published study " Understanding International Harmonization of Pesticide Maximum Residue Limits 
with Codex Standards – A Case Study on Rice ".183 The study explored the level of harmonization in 
main rice producing and trading countries and possible effects on tra de, and investigated the reasons 
behind differing levels of harmonization. The broad objective of the study was to offer insights for 
decision -makers involved in setting of standards and design of food policy at national and 
international level on the sign ificance of harmonization of pesticide MRLs.  
15.31.   In the context of the Sixth Review , India submitted a proposal for discussion on challenges 
posed by stringent MRLs.184 
15.6  National SPS Coordination Mechanisms  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth Review185: 
• 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 that are consistent with th e 
obligations of the SPS Agreement . Members are further encouraged to consider ways to 
strengthen internal coordination on SPS matters.  
• 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 , including 
resolving specific trade concerns.  
• The Committee requests the Secretariat to prepare a collection of resources that can be 
useful for Members in implementing their national coordination mechanisms, starting with 
those mentioned at the 2019 Works hop on Transparency and Coordination, and including 
additional resources as suggested by Members.  
 
15.32.   Following the above recommendation, the Secretariat presented a first draft of the Collection 
of Resources to Facilitate Implementation of National SPS Coor dination Mechanisms, circulated as 
document G/SPS/GEN/1850 . In relation to the tools indicated in Section 3 of the document, on useful 
tools and resources for national SPS coordination, the Secretariat drew attention to enhancements 
to the ePing syste m – the predecessor of the ePing SPS&TBT Platform.  
15.33.   In 2021, the Secretariat presented a revised version of th is collection of resources, circulated 
as document G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1 , and highlighted the changes to Section 3 on useful tools and 
resources for national SPS coordination. Five new resources and an update had been received from 
the STDF. In July 2021, the Chair proposed that the document remain a "living document", to be 
updated any time Members suggested additional resources. On this basis, future discussions on this 
document would only be included in the agenda of the informal meeting if a Member proposed 
additional resources to be included.  
15.7  New Tools and Technologies  
15.34.   In 2020, several Members referred to the International Stateme nt on Agricultural 
Applications of Precision Biotechnology, urging the Committee to establish science - and risk -based 
regulatory frameworks and emphasizing the importance of ensuring food, animal, and plant safety 
 
182 G/SPS/GEN/2176 . 
183 The presentation is available here: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/7d4d4b11 -3173-47ba-
bab8-3d72905720ff  and the study is available here: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/2e9fccb4 -8593-
4c23-8fdf-9ffc821b73a5 . 
184 G/SPS/W/358 . 
185 G/SPS/64 , para. 6.7. (italics original).  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 43 - 
 
  while promoting trade in precision biotech nology products.186 Since it was first presented in 
November  2018187, the statement was co -sponsored by several Members and also supported by 
some observer organizations. Interested Members were encouraged to support the non -binding 
statement and join cooperative and collaborative multilateral efforts to support open and fair tra de 
for products of precision biotechnology.  
15.35.   During the SPS@25 event in November 2020  (see section 15.9  below) , speakers  explored 
trade -related SPS challenges of the future and the potential role of the Committee . In that context, 
they referred to the increasing importance of digitally driven technology in trade and agriculture. 
Speakers noted that COVID -19 related restrictions had led to a wider use of electronic certificates 
and that the increased use of information technology provided more opportunities to gather and 
share data, which could provide a basis to target inspections to high -risk products188. 
15.36.   Electronic certificates were at the heart of ma ny Committee discussions in 2020 -23. 
Several  Members including Chile, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire189, Ecuador190, the European  Union191, 
Indonesia, Senegal, and Ukraine shared information about digital certificates or their transition to 
the IPPC ePhyto Solution. In 2022, Chinese Taipei provided information on an APEC Workshop on 
the Application of Electronic Veterinary and Phytosanitary Certificates (eCertificates).192 In addition, 
the IPPC regularly shared information on the use of electronic certificates  and praised the 
cooperation with the STDF in this regard. In 2020, the IPPC informed that, in order to mitigate the 
impact of COVID -19 restrictions, more countries had started to exchange phytosanitary certificates 
electronically, which had contributed to  the safe trade of plant and plant products during the 
pandemic. Since then, the number of countries exchanging e -certificates had been steadily 
increasing. In 2021, the IPPC further informed the Committee that the formation on a Focus Group 
on its ePhyto Solution was under consideration  (since then established) . In addition, in 2023, 
IICA informed the Committee of its forthcoming workshop on electronic SPS certification, co -hosted 
by the STDF, slated to take place in Costa Rica in July 2023. Also noteworthy: an OECD side event 
on "Digital Opportunities for SPS Systems and the Trade Facilita tion Effects of SPS Electronic 
Certification " was held on the margins of the March 2021 Committee  meeting.193 
15.37.   In June 2022, the Committee held a Thematic Session on the Use of Remote (Virtual) Audit 
and Verification in Regulatory Frameworks194, on the basis of a proposal by Australia.195 The purpose 
of the thematic session was to provide an opportunity to share experiences on the use of remote 
assessment methods, discuss how such approaches may assist Members with their obligations under 
Annex C to the SPS Agreement , and take a closer look at the relevance and scope for future use. 
It also sought to provide insight on ongoing initiatives including guidance being developed by Codex 
under its Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification System s (CCFICS) and 
allow Members and industry representatives to discuss the benefits and challenges of remote audit, 
drawing from their experiences. The Secretariat provided an overview of the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement  which could be relevant in the con text of remote audit and inspection, focusing on 
Article  8 and Annex C, and reported on relevant notifications and STCs. Other sessions delved into 
various forms of remote assessment, including those used during the COVID -19 pandemic, and the 
link with reg ulatory frameworks, as well as relevant international standards and other interna tional  
initiatives. The thematic session also included a roundtable discussion, in which Member and industry 
representatives discussed the benefits of using remote assessment methods to facilitate 
international trade, as well as the associated challenges, such as those linked with privacy and 
security issues. The thematic session was also an opportunity for sharing experiences in more detail 
through case studies, for example lo oking at blended approaches combining on -site and remote 
 
186 G/SPS/GEN/1658 and  its revisions . 
187 G/SPS/R/93 . 
188 G/SPS/GEN/1848 . 
189 G/SPS/GEN/2175 . 
190 G/SPS/GEN/1771 . 
191 G/SPS/GEN/1799 . 
192 G/SPS/GEN/2066 . 
193 JOB/SPS/13 . 
194 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/2016/Rev.1  and the report is contained in 
Annex B of document G/SPS/R/107 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/thematic_session_21jun22_e.htm . 
195 G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 44 - 
 
  audits. In addition, in November 2023, an OECD side event on "Costs, Benefits and Effectiveness of 
Remote Audits for International Food Safety " was held in the margin of the Committee meeting.196 
15.38.   In t he context of the Sixth Review , Australia, the European  Union , Norway, 
the United  Kingdom  and the United  States  submitted proposals for discussion on technology and 
IT tools.197 In March 2024,  upon the United States' suggestion,  the Committee decided to hold a 
thematic session on digital tools, scheduled for June  2024.  
15.8  Organizations with Observer Status  
15.39.   In the context of the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Programme (see section  14  above),  
Members held extensive discussions on the topic of cooperation with observer organizations.  
15.8.1   Information from Observer Organizations  
15.40.   At the last Committee me eting of each year, Members decide whether to invite organizations 
with ad hoc  observer status in the Committee to participate in all of the Committee meetings in the 
following year – with the exception of closed meeting s. At the beginning of the following  year, 
the Secretariat officially invites these organizations to participate in all Committee  meetings of the 
year. In line with the WTO General Council Guidelines and the SPS Committee 's decisions, observer 
organizations are permitted to attend the inform al and regular meetings of the SPS Committee  but 
cannot participate in the decision -making process. Observers are invited to inform the Committee  
of their relevant activities at each meeting, including activities relating to capacity  building and 
technical  assistance. Observers are encouraged to submit written reports on their activities in 
advance of each Committee  meeting and highlight the most important information in a brief oral 
statement to the Committee . 
15.41.   In 2020 -23, the African Union , AOAD , CAHFSA , ECOWAS , GSO, IGAD , IICA, ITC, the OECD , 
OIRSA , SADC  and the World Bank Group  provided reports on their SPS -related activities.  
15.42.   In addition, as indicated in Appendix B , several observer organizations held side events on 
the margins of the Committee  meetings: " Understanding International Harmonization of Pesticide 
Maximum Residue Limits with Codex S tandards – A Case Study on Rice " (FAO, November  2020); 
"Digital Opportunities for SPS Systems and the Trade Facilitation Effects of SPS Electronic 
Certification " (OECD, March 2021); "Systems Approaches in Food Safety and Plant  Health" (STDF 
and World Bank,  July 2021); "Presentation of IFC Scan Guide and IFC Food Safety Handbook" (World 
Bank Group International Finance Corporation, November 2022); "Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Approval Procedures – Key Issues, Their Impact on Trade and Ways to Address Them" (O ECD, March 
2023); and " Costs, Benefits and Effectiveness of Remote Audits for International Food Safety " 
(OECD, November 2023) . 
15.8.2   New Requests for Observer Status  
15.43.   A new request for observer status was received from the United Nations Industrial 
Organization (UNIDO)198 and, in June 2020, Members were invited to submit written comments on 
the request, for further consideration in the November 2020 Committee meeting. Senegal, Belize199, 
and Morocco200 supported UNIDO's request. The Chairperson indicated that he had been informed 
that it would not be possible to reach consensus status on UNIDO's request.  
15.44.   Another new request for observer status was received from the Arab Organization for 
Agricultural Dev elopment (AOAD)201 and, similarly, in June 2020, Members were invited to submit 
written comments on the request, for further consideration in the November 2020 Committee 
 
196 JOB/SPS/32 . 
197 Australia ( G/SPS/W/361 ), the European Union ( G/SPS/W/353  and G/SPS/W/359 ), Norway 
(G/SPS/W/366 ), the United Kingdom ( G/SPS/W/360 ) and the United States ( G/SPS/W/350  and G/SPS/W/363 ). 
198 G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.18 . 
199 G/SPS/GEN/1841 . 
200 G/SPS/GEN/1867 . 
201 G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.19 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 45 - 
 
  meeting. At that meeting, no objections were received,  and the Committee agreed to  grant ad hoc 
observer status to AOAD.  
15.45.   In 2022 and again in 2023, a new request for observer status was received from the 
International  Olive Council (IOC).202 Tunisia supported the IOC's request. The Chairperson indicated 
that he had been informed that it would  not be possible to reach consensus status on IOC's request.  
15.8.3   Pending Requests  
15.46.   Pending requests for observer status are contained in the latest revision of document 
G/SPS/W/78 . In 2020 -23, the Chairperson regularly noted that there was still no consensus on th e 
six outstanding requests for observer status from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); 
CABI International; the  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora (CITES); the  Organisation Internationale de la Vigne e t du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific 
Coconut Community (APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO). No Member took the 
floor under this agenda item in 2020 -23. 
15.47.   In 2023, the Chairperson noted that some pending requests dated back more than ten years 
and that he intended to consult with the Secretariat on the way to tackle the list. Later in 2023, 
the Committee agreed to request the Secretariat to send a letter, on  behalf of the Chairperson, to 
these organizations indicating that the Committee had been unable to reach a consensus on their 
requests, which had been pending for several years, and asking them to renew their interest if they 
still wished these requests t o be considered. In November 2023 the Secretariat contacted all relevant 
organizations.  A renewed expression of interest was received from the CBD  and, in March 2024, 
the Chairperson noted  that it would not be possible to reach consensus to grant observer status to 
the CBD . No indication of renewed interest for observer status was received from any of the other 
five organizations and, at that same meeting, the Chairperson proposed remov ing the five 
organizations from the list of pending requests in G/SPS/W/78 , as per the Committee's agreed 
approach.  
15.9  SPS@25  
15.48.   2020 marked the 25th anniversary of the SPS Agreement . Members recognized that MC12, 
which had been  initially scheduled in 2020, provided an opportune point to reflect on the successes 
achieved since th e adoption of the SPS Agreement  and recognize the challenges ahead resulting 
from emerging pressures. In that context, a group of Members proposed an SPS Declaration for 
MC12203, that was subsequently adopted as the MC12 SPS Declaration (see section 14  above).204 
15.49.   In June 2020, the Secretariat noted that it would consult Members on the possibility of 
organizing a symposium in November 2020. During info rmal Committee consultations held in 
September 2020, the Secretariat explained that a half -day SPS@25 anniversary event was planned 
and invited delegates to submit ideas and suggestions.  
15.50.   An SPS@25 half -day informal event was held in November 2020 to celebr ate 
the 25th anniversary of the SPS Agreement . Following opening remarks of DDG Alan Wolff, the first 
session of the SPS@25 event, "Everything you always wanted to know about the SPS Agreement  
but were afraid to ask", looked back at the negotiations of the  SPS Agreement  and the evolution of 
the Committee  over time. In the second session, "The Crystal Ball", speakers explored trade -related 
SPS challenges of the future and the potential role of the Committee . The Secretariat produced a 
set of videos with cont ributions by former Chairpersons, which were streamed during the event and 
shared on WTO's social media accounts.205 
 
202 G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.20 . 
203 G/SPS/GEN/1758  and its revisions . 
204 WT/MIN(22)/27 . 
205 The programme was circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1848  and the report is contained in Annex C 
of G/SPS/R/100 . Infographics and videos are available at: 
https:/ /www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_at25_e.htm . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 46 - 
 
  15.10   Voluntary Third-Party Assurance Schemes  
Recommendations resulting from the Fifth Review206: 
• The Committee had agreed to hold a Thematic Session on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance 
in March 2020, which had to be postponed due to the COVID -19 pandemic. The Committee 
agrees to reschedule this Thematic Session as soon as the COVID -19 situation allows.  
 
15.51.   Following this recommendation in the Fifth Review, in November 2020, the Committee held 
a Thematic Session on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance as part of National SPS Control Systems207, 
based on proposals submitted by Belize.208 Codex and t he IPPC discussed existing standard s and 
ongoing work, e.g. draft Codex guidelines for the use of third -party assurance schemes, which were 
later adopted. Members, including Belize, Egypt, Canada, Germany, and the United  States  shared 
experiences with vTPA programmes. The C ommittee also heard from GFSI on its efforts to harmonize 
requirements for accredited private certification programmes with a mutual recognition approach. 
Finally, there was a dedicated session on capacity building efforts, with interventions from the STDF  
and Honduras regarding STDF vTPA pilot projects209, UNIDO, TradeMark East Africa, COMESA, 
South  Africa, and GFSI.  
15.52.   A standing agenda item is included on the Committee's agenda on "Concerns with private 
and commercial standards". In 2020-23, no Member provided information under this agenda item.  
15.53.   In the context of the Sixth Review , Belize submitted proposals to hold a Thematic Session 
on Monitoring the Use of International Standards: Implementation of the CCFICS Guideline on the 
Use of Voluntary Third -Party Assurance Programmes (CXG 93 -2021).210 
_______________  
 
206 G/SPS/64 , para. 11.9. (italics original) . 
207 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1754/Rev.3  and the report is contained in 
Annex A of G/SPS/R/100 . Presentations  and more information are  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/en glish/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_thematic_session_31120_e.htm . 
208 G/SPS/W/316  and G/SPS/W/320 .  
209 During the same Committee week, Belize also reported on the STDF project on "Piloting the use of 
Third-Party Assurance (TPA) Program me in Central America (Belize  and Honduras) to Improve Food Safety 
Outcomes for Public Health". ( G/SPS/GEN/1839 ) 
210 G/SPS/W/355  and G/SPS/W/362 . G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 47 - 
 
  APPENDIX A – OVERVIEW OF COMMITTEE THEMATIC SESSIONS AND WORKSHOPS  IN 
JANUARY 2020  – MARCH  2024  
Date  Topic  Webpage  
18-19 March 2024  Workshop on Transparency  (see 
paragraph 8.25.  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
sps_1803202410_e/sps_1803202410_e.htm   
14 November 2023  Thematic Session on Risk 
Communication, Misinformation and 
Disinformation  (see paragraph 
3.1.  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
sps_1411202310_e/sps_1411202310_e.htm   
8 November 2022  Thematic Session on International 
Standards and Best Practices in Pest 
Risk Identification, Assessment, and 
Management  (see paragraph 3.3.  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/t
hematic_session_nov22_e.htm   
21 June 2022  Thematic Session on the Use of 
Remote (Virtual) Audit and 
Verification in Regulatory 
Frameworks  (see paragraph 
15.37.   ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/t
hemati c_session_21jun22_e.htm   
20 June  Workshop on Transparency  (see 
paragraph 8.24.  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
workshop_transparency_20jun22_e.htm   
22 March 2022  Thematic Session on Trade 
Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide 
MRLs, including Substances not 
Approved for Use in an Import 
Market (see paragraph  15.26.   ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/t
hematicsession220322_e.htm   
2 November 2021  Thematic Session on Procedure to 
Monitor the Process of International 
Harmoniz ation (see section 1.2  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
sps_nov21_e.htm   
12-13 July 2021  Workshop on Risk Assessment, 
Management and Communication  
(see paragraph  3.1.  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
sps_nov21_e.htm   
23 March 2021  Thematic Session on 
African  Swine  Fever  (see paragraph  
5.21.  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
sps_thematic_session_230321_e.htm   
3 November 2020  Thematic Session on Voluntary 
Third-Party Assurance as Part of 
National SPS Control Systems  (see 
paragraph  15.10   5.21.  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
sps_themati c_session_31120_e.htm   
2 November 2020  SPS@25: Commemorating 25 years 
of the SPS Agreement  (see section 
15.9  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
sps_at25_e.htm   
24 June 2020  SPS Committee  information  sharing 
session on COVID -19 (see section 
15.2  ) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/
sps_covid_session_24620_e.htm   
 G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 48 - 
 
  APPENDIX B – OVERVIEW OF COMMITTEE SIDE EVENTS  
IN JANUARY  2020  – MARCH  2024  
Date  Organizer  Title Relevant  
documents  
20 March 2024  STDF International Francophonie Day  G/SPS/GEN/219 8; 
JOB/SPS/34  
19 March 2024  COLEAD  Introducing the EU -funded AGRINFO 
Information Programme on New 
EU Policies and Regulations  G/SPS/GEN/2205 ; 
JOB/SPS/34  
16 November 2023  OECD  Costs, Benefits and Effectiveness of 
Remote Audits for International Food 
Safety G/SPS/GEN/2156 ; 
JOB/SPS/32  
15 November 2023  Oxford University 
Press  Book Launch, Second Edition of the 
WTO Agreement on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures – 
A Commentary  JOB/SPS/32  
14 November 2023  European  Union  Empowering Learning and Impact: 
Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) in 
your Language  G/SPS/GEN/2157 ; 
JOB/SPS/32  
13 July 2023  STDF Facilitating Safe Trade: Why Does 
Gender Matter for SPS Compliance?  G/SPS/GEN/2135 ; 
JOB/SPS/29  
23 March 2023  Codex , WOAH , and 
the IPPC  Monitoring the Implementation of 
International Standards  G/SPS/GEN/2100 ; 
JOB/SPS/26  
22 March 2023  OECD  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Approval 
Procedures – Key Issues, their Impact 
on Trade and Ways to Address Them  G/SPS/GEN/2105 ; 
JOB/SPS/26  
9 November 2022  World Bank Group 
International Finance 
Corporation (IFC)  Presentation of IFC Scan Guide and IFC 
Food Safety Handbook  G/SPS/GEN/2063 ; 
JOB/SPS/23  
23 March 2022  Uganda and the 
United  States  Responding to Fall A rmyworm – 
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and 
Policy Approaches  JOB/SPS/19  
21 March 2022  STDF in collaboration 
with Canada and 
France  Exploring SPS Technical Assistance in 
Francophone Africa  JOB/SPS/19  
3 November 2021  STDF Launch of the STDF Guide on Good 
Regulatory Practices to Improve SPS 
Measures  JOB/SPS/17  
15 July 2021  United  States  Improved SPS Capacity through 
Distance Learning  G/SPS/GEN/1914  
JOB/SPS/15  
14 July 2021  STDF and World 
Bank Systems Approaches in Food Safety 
and Plant Health  JOB/SPS/15  
26 March 2021  OECD  Digital Opportunities for SPS Systems 
and the Trade Facilitation Effects of SPS 
Electronic Certification  JOB/SPS/13  
24 March 2021  WTO WTO Trade Concerns Database  JOB/SPS/13  
24 March 2021  STDF Investing in Safe Trade Systems to 
Protect Health and Market Access  JOB/SPS/13  
23 March 2021  IPPC Promoting Safe Trade in the 
International Year of Plant Health  JOB/SPS/13  
5 November 2020  FAO Understanding International 
Harmonization of Pesticide Maximum 
Residue Limits with Codex Standards – 
A Case Study on Rice JOB/SPS/11  
4 November 2020  WOAH (OIE at the 
time)  Launch of two new publications: 
Scientific and Technical Review on 
"Ensuring Safe Trade in Animals and 
Animal Products" and Technical Item 
2020 on "Required Competences of 
Veterinary Services for International 
Trade"  JOB/SPS/11  
2 November 2020  Permanent Missions 
of Canada, 
Colombia, Costa 
Rica, Ecuador, 
Guatemala, 
Paraguay, and the 
United  States  Farmers' Perspectives on SPS 
Challenges for Sustainable Food 
Production and Trade  JOB/SPS/11  
  
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 49 - APPENDIX C – WTO DISPUTES INVOKING THE SPS AGREEMENT  
  Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
1 STC 2  WT/DS3  Korea - Measures 
Concerning the 
Testing and 
Inspection of 
Agricultural Products  US complaint against 
Korea's inspection 
procedures for fresh fruits  Consultations 
requested on 
04/04/1995  
(WT/DS 3/1) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
resolved ( G/SPS/GEN/265 ) 
2 STC 1  WT/DS5  Korea - Measures 
Concerning the Shelf -
Life of Products  US complaint against 
Korea's shelf -life 
requirements for  frozen 
processed meats and 
other products  Consultations 
requested on 
03/05/1995  
(WT/DS5/1 ) Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS5/5 ) notified on 20/07/1995  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
resolved ( G/SPS/GEN/265 ) 
3 STC 8  WT/DS18  Australia - Measures 
Affecting Importation 
of Salmon  Canada's complaint 
against Australia's import 
restrict ions on fresh, 
chilled, or frozen salmon  Consultations 
requested on 
05/10/1995  
(WT/DS18/1 ) Panel established on 10/04/1997  
Panel composed on 28/05/1997  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS18/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS18/R ) adopted on 6/11/1998  
Suspension of concessions authorized on 24/12/1998  
Article 21.3(c) DSU arbitration award circulated ( WT/DS18/9 ) on 
23/02/1999  
Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings: panel report 
(WT/DS18/RW ) adopted on 20 /03/2000  
DSB is informed of mutually agreed solution on 18/05/2000  
4 STC 1  WT/DS20  Korea - Measures 
concerning Bottled 
Water  Canada's complaint 
against Korea's 
restrictions on treatment 
methods for bottled water  Consultations 
requested on 
08/11/1995  
(WT/DS20/1 ) Mutually agreed solution notified ( WT/DS20/6 ) on 24/04/1996  
Note: Notification received reg arding the resolution of the STC 
(RD/SPS/114 ) 
5 STC 8  WT/DS21  Australia - Measures 
Affecting the 
Importation of 
Salmonids  US complaint against 
Australia's import 
restrictions on fresh, 
chilled, or frozen salmon  Consultations 
requested on 
17/11/1995  
(WT/DS21/1 ) Panel established on 16/06/1999  
Mutually agreed solution notified ( WT/DS21/10 ) on 27/10/2000   
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 50 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
6 N/A WT/DS26  European 
Communities - 
Measures Concerning 
Meat and Meat 
Products (Hormones)  US complaint against EC's 
prohibition of meat from 
animals treated w ith 
growth -promoting 
hormones  Consultations 
requested on 
26/01/1996  
(WT/DS26/1 ) Panel established on 20/05/1996  
Panel composed on 02/07/1996  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS26/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS26/R/USA ) adopted on 13/02/1998  
Suspension of concessions authorized on 26/07/1999  
Article 21.3(c) DSU arbitration award ( WT/DS26/15 ) circulated on 
29/05/1998  
Article 22.6 DSU arbitration decision ( WT/DS26/ARB ) circulate d on 
12/07/1999  
Authorization to retaliate granted on 26/07/1999  
Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings: request for consultations 
(WT/DS26/23 ) on 22/12/2008  
Memorandum of understanding ( WT/DS26/28 ) notified on 
25/09/2009 and revised ( WT/DS26/29 ) on 17/04/2014  
7 STC 2  WT/DS41  Korea - Measures 
concerning 
Inspection of 
Agricultural Products  US complaint against 
Korea's inspection 
procedures for fresh fruits   Consultations 
requested on 
24/05/1996  
(WT/DS41/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
resolved ( G/SPS/GEN/265 ) 
8 N/A WT/DS48  European 
Communities - 
Measures Concerning 
Meat and Meat 
Products (Hormones)  Canada's complaint 
against EC prohibition of 
meat from animals 
treated with growth -
promoting hormones  Consultations 
requested on 
28/06/1996  
(WT/DS48/1 ) Panel established on 16/10/1996  
Panel composed on 04/11/1996  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS48/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS48/R/CAN ) adopted on 13/02/1998  
Suspension of concessions authorized on 26/07/1999  
Article 21.3(c) DSU arbitration award ( WT/DS48/13 ) circulated on 
29/05/1998  
Article 22.6 DSU arbitration decision ( WT/DS26/ARB ) circulate d on 
12/07/1999  
Authorization to retaliate granted on 26/07/1999  
Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings: request for consultations 
(WT/DS48/21 ) on 25/09/2009  
Memorandum of understanding ( WT/DS48/26 ) notified on 
17/03/2011  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS48/27 ) notified on 28/09/2017  
9 STC 12  WT/DS76  Japan - Measures 
Affecting Agricultural 
Products  US complaint against 
Japan's "varietal testing" 
requiremen t for fresh 
fruits  Consultations 
requested on 
07/04/1997  
(WT/DS76/1 ) Panel established on 18/11/1997  
Panel composed on 18/12/1997  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS76/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS76/R ) adopted on 19/03/1999  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS76/12 ) notified on 23/08/2001  
10 N/A WT/DS96  India - Quantitative 
Restrictions on 
Imports of 
Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial 
Products  EC complaint against 
India's quantitative 
restrict ions on agricultural 
and other products  Consultations 
requested on 
18/07/1997  
(WT/DS96/1 ) Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS96/8 ) notified on 07/04/1998 (see 
also WT/DS96/8/Corr.1 , WT/DS96/8/Add.1 )  
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 51 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
11 N/A WT/DS100  United States - 
Measures Affecting 
Imports of Poultry 
Products  EC complaint against US 
restrictions on poultry 
imports  Consultations 
requested on 
18/08/1997 
(WT/DS100/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
12 STC 4  WT/DS133  Slovak Republic - 
Measures Concerning 
the Importation of 
Dairy Products and 
the Transit of Cattle  Switzerland's complaint 
against Slovakia's BSE -
related restrictions on 
cattle and meat  Consultations 
requested on 
07/05/1998  
(WT/DS133/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
resolved ( G/SPS/R/14 ) 
13 N/A WT/DS134  European 
Communities - 
Restrictions on 
Certain Import Duties 
on Rice  India's complaint against 
EC restrictions on rice 
imports  Consultations 
requested on 
27/05/1998 
(WT/DS134/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
14 N/A WT/DS135  European 
Communities - 
Measures Affecting 
Asbestos and 
Products Containing 
Asbestos  Canada's complaint 
against EC (French) 
measures affecting 
asbestos  Consultations 
requested on 
28/05/1998 
(WT/DS135/1 ) Panel established on 25/11/1998  
Panel composed on 29/03/1999  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS/135/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS/135/R ) adopted on 05/04/2001  
Note: No findings under the SPS Agreement  
15 N/A WT/DS137  European 
Communities - 
Measures Affecting 
Imports of Wood of 
Conifers from Canada  Canada's complaint 
against EC restrictions 
due to pine wood 
nematodes  Consultations 
requested on 
17/06/1998 
(WT/DS137/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
16 N/A WT/DS144  United States - 
Certain Measures 
Affecting the Import 
of Cattle, Swine and 
Grain from Canada  Canada's complaint 
against US state 
restrictions  on movement 
of Canadian trucks 
carrying live animals and 
grains  Consultations 
requested on 
25/09/1998 
(WT/DS144/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
17 N/A WT/DS203  Mexico - Measures 
Affecting Trade in 
Live Swine  US complaint against 
Mexico's measures 
affecting trade in live 
swine  Consultations 
requested on 
10/07/2000 
(WT/DS203/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
18 STC 77  WT/DS205  Egypt - Import 
Prohibition on 
Canned Tu na with 
Soybean Oil  Thailand's complaint 
against Egypt's GMO -
related prohibition on 
imports of canned tuna 
with soybean oil  Consultations 
request on 
22/09/2000  
(WT/DS205/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute   
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 52 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
19 STC 92  WT/DS2 37  Turkey - Certain 
Import Procedures 
for Fresh Fruit  Ecuador's complaint 
against Türkiye's import 
require ments for fresh 
fruit, especially bananas  Consultations 
requested on 
31/08/2001 
(WT/DS237/1 ) Panel established on 29/07/2002; panel composition suspended on 
the same day  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS237/4 ) notified on 22/11/2002  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
resolved ( G/SPS/R/34 )  
20 STC 100  WT/DS2 45  Japan - Measures 
Affecting the 
Importation of Apples  US complaint against 
Japan's restrictions on 
apples due to fire blight  Consultations 
requested on 
01/03/2002  
(WT/DS245/1 ) Panel established on 03/06/2002  
Panel composed on 16/07/2002  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS245/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS245/R ) adopted on 10/12/2003  
Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings: Panel report 
(WT/DS245/RW ) adopted on 20/07/2005  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS245/RW ) notified on 30/08/2005  
21 STC 76  WT/DS256  Turkey - Import Ban 
on Pet Food from 
Hungary  Hungary's complaint 
against Türkiye's 
restrictions on imports of 
pet food (BSE)  Consultations 
requested on 
03/05/2002  
(WT/DS256/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
resolved ( G/SPS/R/34 )  
22 STC 74  WT/DS270  Australia - Certain 
Measures Affecting 
the Importation of 
Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetables  Philippine complaint 
against Australia's 
restrictions on fresh fruits 
and vegetables, including 
bananas  Consultations 
requested on 
18/10/2002 
(WT/DS270/1 ) Panel established on 29/08/2003  
23 STC 74  WT/DS271  Australia - Certain 
Measures Affecting 
the Importation of 
Fresh Pineapple  Philippine complaint 
against Australia's 
restrictions on pineapples  Consultations 
requested on 
18/10/2002 
(WT/DS271/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
24 N/A WT/DS279  India - Import 
Restrictions 
Maintained Under the 
Export and Import 
Policy 2002 -2007  EC complaint against 
India's export and import 
policy  Consultations 
requested on 
23/12/2002 
(WT/DS279/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
25 STC 164  WT/DS284  Mexico - Certain 
Measures Preventin g 
the Importation of 
Black Beans from 
Nicaragua  Nicaragua's complaint 
against Mexico's 
phytosanitary restrictions 
on black beans  Consultations 
requested on 
17/03/2003 
(WT/DS284/1 ) Request for consultations withdrawn ( WT/DS284/4 ) on 08/03/2004 
(Nicaragua considered its complaints to have been adequately 
addressed as a result of negotiations with Mexico)  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC between 
the United States and Mexico had been resolved (G/SPS/R/42 ) 
26 STC 139  WT/DS2 87  Australia - 
Quarantine Regime 
for Imports  EC complaint against 
Australian quarantine 
regime  Consultations 
requested on 
03/04/2003  
(WT/DS287/1 ) Panel established on 07/11/2003  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS287/8 ) notified on 09/03/2007   
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 53 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
27 STC 
106/110  WT/DS291  European 
Communities - 
Measures Affecting 
the Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech 
Products  US complaint against EC 
on GMO approvals  Consultati ons 
requested on 
13/05/2003 
(WT/DS291/ 1) Single panel established for disputes DS291, DS292, and DS293 on 
29/08/2003  
Panel composed on 04/03/2004  
Panel report ( WT/DS291/R ) was adopted on 21/11/2006  
Arbitration ( WT/DS291/34 ) requested on 07/02/2008  
Suspension of concessions authorized on 15/02/2008  
Article 22 6 of the DSU arbitrator composed on 18/02/2008  
28 STC 
106/110  WT/DS292  European 
Communities - 
Measures Affecting 
the Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech 
Products  Canada's complaint 
against EC on GMO 
approvals  Consultations 
requested on 
13/05/2003 
(WT/DS292/1 ) Single Panel established to examine disputes DS291, DS292, and 
DS293 on 29/08/2003  
Panel composed on 04/03/2004  
Panel report ( WT/DS292/R ) adopted on 21/11/2006  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS292/40 ) notified on 15/07/2009  
29 STC 
106/110  WT/DS293  European 
Communities - 
Measures Affecting 
the Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech 
Products  Argentina's complaint 
against EC on GMO 
approvals  Consultations 
requested on 
14/05/2003 
(WT/DS293/1 ) Single Panel established to examine disputes DS291, DS292, and 
DS293 on 29/08/2003  
Panel composed on 04/03/2004  
Panel report ( WT/DS293/R ) adopted on 21/11/2006  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS293/41 ) notified on 19/03/2010  
30 STC 166  WT/DS297  Croatia - Measures 
Affecting Imports of 
Live Animals and 
Meat Products  Hungary's complaint 
against Croatia's 
restrictions on live 
animals and  meat 
products  Consultations 
requested on 
09/07/2003  
(WT/DS297/1 ) Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS297/2 ) notified on 30/01/2009  
31 N/A WT/DS320*  United States - 
Continued 
Suspension of 
Obligations  EC complaint against the 
US continued suspension 
of obligations in the EC -
Hormones dispute  Consultations 
requested on 
08/11/2004  
(WT/DS320/1 ) Panel established on 17/02/2005  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS320/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS320/R ) adopted on 14/11/2008 (see also Memorandum of 
Understanding, DS26)  
32 N/A WT/DS321*  Canada - Continued 
Suspension of 
Obligations  EC complaint against 
Canada's continued 
suspension of obligations 
in the EC -Hormones 
Dispute  Consultations 
requested on 
08/11/2004  
(WT/DS321/1 ) Panel established on 17/02/2005  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS321/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS321/R ) adopted on 14/11/2008 (see also Memorandum of 
Understanding, DS48)   
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 54 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
33 STC 217  WT/DS367  Australia - Measures 
Affecting the 
Importation of Apples 
from New Zealand  New Zealand's complaint 
against Australia's 
restrictions on apples  Consultations 
requested on 
31/08/2007 
(WT/DS367/1 ) Panel established on 21/01/2008  
Panel composed on 12/03/2008  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS367/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS367/R ) adopted on 17/12/2010  
Agreed reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB 
recommendations and rulings expired on 17/08/2011 (New 
Zealand questioned whether Australia had full y implemented the 
DSB recommendations  and rulings)  
Agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU 
(sequencing agreement - WT/DS367/21 ) notified on 13/09/2011  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
resolved ( RD/SPS/114 ) 
34 TBT STC 
91  WT/DS384  United States - 
Certain Country of 
Origin Labelling 
Requirements  Canada's complaint 
against the US country of 
origin labelling 
requirements  Consultations 
requested on 
01/12/2008  
(WT/DS384/1 ) Panel established with that of Mexico (DS386) on 19/11/ 2009  
Panel composed on 10/05/2010  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS384/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS384/R ) adopted on 23/07/2012  
Note: No findings under the SPS Agreement  
Article 21.3(c) DSU arbitration award ( WT/DS384/24 ) circulated on 
04/12/2012  
Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings: Appellate Body report 
(WT/DS384/AB/RW ) and Panel report ( WT/DS384/RW  and Add.1 ) 
adopted on 29/05/2015  
Article 22.6 DSU arbitration decision ( WT/DS384/ARB ) circulated 
on 07/12/2015  
Authorization to retaliate granted on 21/12/2015  
35 TBT STC 
91  WT/DS386  United States - 
Certain Country of 
Origin Labelling 
Requirements  Mexico's complaint 
against the US country of 
origin labelling 
requirements  Consultations 
requested on 
17/12/2008 
(WT/DS386/1 ) Panel established with that of Canada (DS384) on 19/11/2009  
Panel composed on 10/05/2010  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS386/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS386/R ) adopted on 23/07/2012  
Note: No findings under the  SPS Agreement  
Article 21.3(c) DSU arbitration award ( WT/DS386/23 ) circulated on 
04/12/2012  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS386/AB/RW ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS386/RW  and Add.1 ) adopted on 29/05/2015  
Article 22.6 DSU arbitration decision ( WT/DS386/ARB ) circulated 
on 07/12/2015  
Authorization to retaliate grant ed on 21/12/2015  
36 STC 242  WT/DS3 89  European 
Communities - 
Certain Measures 
Affecting Poultry 
Meat and Poultry 
Meat Products from 
the US  US complaint against EC 
measures affecting 
poultry meat and poultry 
meat products  Consultations 
requested on 
16/01/2009 
(WT/DS389/1 ) Panel established, but not composed, on 19/11/2009   
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 55 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
37 STC 247  WT/DS391  Korea - Measures 
Affecting the 
Importation of 
Bovine Meat and 
Meat Products from 
Canada  Canada's complaint 
against Korea's measures 
affecting the importation 
of bovine meat and meat 
products  Consultations 
requested on 
09/04/2009  
(WT/DS391/1 ) Panel established on 31/08/2009  
Panel composed on 13/11/2009  
Panel proceedings suspended on 4/07/2011  
Mutually agreed solution notified ( WT/DS391/9 ) on 19/06/2012  
Panel report ( WT/DS391/R ) circulated on 03/07/2012 (reporting 
that a mutually agreed solution to this dispute  
has been reached between the parties)  
38 STC 257  WT/DS392  United States - 
Certain Measures 
Affecting Imports of 
Poultry from China  China's complaint against 
US measures affecting 
imports of poultry  Consultations 
requested on 
17/04/2009 
(WT/DS392/1 ) Panel established on 31/07/2009  
Panel composed on 23/09/2009  
Panel report ( WT/DS392/R ) adopted on 25/10/2010  
39 TBT STC 
257  WT/DS406  United States - 
Measures Affect ing 
the Production and 
Sale of Clove 
Cigarettes  Indonesia's complaint 
about US ban on clove 
cigarettes  Consultations 
requested on 
07/04/2010  
(WT/DS406/1 ) Panel established on 20/07/2010  
Panel composed on 09/10/2010  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS406/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS406/R ) adopted on 24/04/2012  
Note: No findings under the SPS Agreement  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS406/17 ) notified on 03/10/2014  
40 STC 185  WT/DS430  India - Measures 
Concerning the 
Importation of 
Certain Agricultural 
Products  US complaint against 
India's  import restrictions 
on agricultural products  Consultations 
requested on 
06/03/2012  
(WT/DS430/1 ) Panel established on 25/06/2012  
Panel composed on 18/02/2013  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS430/AB/R ) and Panel report 
(WT/DS430/R  and Add.1 ) adopted on 19/06/2015  
Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings: panel establishment 
requested ( WT/DS475/21 ) on 07/04/2017 (withdrawn following 
mutually agreed solution)  
Mutually agreed solution ( WT/DS430/60 ) notified on 15/03/2024  
41 STC 318  WT/DS447  United States - 
Measures Affecting 
the Importation of 
Animals, Meat and 
Other Animal 
Products from 
Argentina  Argentina's complaint 
against US restrictions on 
beef and other meat 
products  Consultations 
requested on 
30/08/2012  
(WT/DS447/1  and 
WT/DS447/1/Corr.1 ) Panel established on 28/01/2013  
Panel composed on 08/08/2013  
Panel report ( WT/DS447/R  and Add.1 ) adopted on 31/08/2015  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
partially resolved ( G/SPS/GEN/2062/Rev.1 ) 
42 STC 336  WT/DS448  United States - 
Measures Affecting 
the Importation of 
Fresh Lemons  Argentina's complaint 
against US measures 
affecting the importation 
of fresh lemons  Consultations 
requested on 
03/09/2012  
(WT/DS448/1  and 
WT/DS448/1/Corr.1 ) Panel establishment requested on 06/12/2012  
Note: The Committee was informed that the related STC had been 
partially resolved ( G/SPS/GEN/2062/Rev.1 )  
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 56 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
43 STC 369  WT/DS475  Russian Federation - 
Measures on the 
Importation of Live 
Pigs, Pork and Other 
Pig Products from the 
European Union  EU's complaint against the  
Russian Federation's 
measures affecting the 
importation of live pigs 
pork, pork products and 
certain other commodities 
because of African Swine 
Fever  Consultations 
requested on 
08/04/2013 
(WT/DS475/1 ) Panel established on 22/07/2014  
Panel composed on 23/10/2014  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS475/AB/R  and Add.1 ) and Panel 
report ( WT/DS475/R  and Add.1 ) adopted on 21/03/2017  
Agreed reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB 
recommendations and rulings expired on 06/12/2017  
Matter referred to Article 22.6 DSU arbitration on 03/01/2018  
Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings: consultatio ns requested 
by the Russian Federation ( WT/DS475/19 ) and the European Union 
(WT/DS475/20 ) on 25/01/2018 02/02/2018, respectively; 
compliance  panel established on 21/11/2018 (same panel as the 
original panel)  
Authority for compliance panel lapsed on 28/01/20 21 
44 STC 286  WT/DS484  Indonesia - Measures 
Concerning the 
Importation of 
Chicken Meat and 
Chicken Products  Brazil's complaint against 
certain Indonesian 
measures o n the 
importation of meat from 
fowls of the species Gallus 
domesticus  and products 
from fowls of the species 
Gallus domesticus   Consultations 
requested on 
16/10/2014 
(WT/DS/484/1 ) Panel established on 03/12/2015  
Panel composed on 03/03/2016  
Panel report ( WT/DS484/R ) adopted on 22/11/2017  
Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings: Panel report 
(WT/DS/484/RW  and Add.1 ) circulated on 10/11/2020  
Decisions to appeal by Indonesia ( WT/DS 484/25) and to cross -
appeal ( WT/DS 484/26) by Brazil on 17/12/2020 and 22/12/2020, 
respectively  
45 STC 359  WT/DS495  Korea - Import Bans, 
and Testing and 
Certification 
Requirements for 
Radionuclides  Japan's complaint against 
Korea's measures adopted 
subsequen t to the 
accident at the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power 
plant regarding import 
bans, additional testing 
and certification 
requirements, and a 
number of alleged 
omissions concerning 
transparency obligations  Consultations 
requested on 
21/05/2015 
(WT/DS/495/1 ) Panel established on 28/09/2015  
Panel composed on 8/02/2016  
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS495/AB/R  and Add.1 ) and Panel 
report ( WT/DS495/R  and Add.1 ) adopted on 26/04/2019  
46 STC 305  WT/DS5 06  Indonesia - Measures 
Concerning the 
Importation of 
Bovine Meat  Brazil's complaint 
regarding certain 
measures imposed by 
Indonesia on the 
importation of meat from 
cattle of the species Bos 
taurus  Consultations 
requested on 
04/04/2016 
(WT/DS/506/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
47 STC 394  WT/DS524  Costa Rica - 
Measures Concerning 
the Importation of Mexico's complaint 
against Costa Rica's 
measures that restrict or 
prohibit the importation of Consultations 
requested on 
08/03/2017 
(WT/DS/524/1 ) Panel established on 18/12/2018  
Panel composed on 16/05/2019  
Panel report ( WT/DS524/R  and Add.1 ) adopted on 31/05/2022   
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 57 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
Fresh Avocados from 
Mexico  fresh avocados for 
consumption from Mexico  
48 N/A WT/DS525  Ukraine - Measures 
relating to Trade in 
Goods and Services  Russian Federation's 
complaint with respect to 
alleged restrictions, 
prohibitions,  requirements 
and procedures adopted 
and maintained by 
Ukraine in respect of 
trade in goods and 
services as well as transit  Consultations 
requested on 
19/05/2017 
(WT/DS/525/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
49 N/A WT/DS532  Russian Federation - 
Measures Concerning 
the Importation and 
Transit of Certain 
Ukrainian Products  Ukraine's complaint with 
respect to Russia n 
Federation's measures 
concerning trade of juice 
products, beer, beer -
based beverages and 
other alcoholic beverages, 
confectionary products, 
wall paper and similar 
wall coverings from 
Ukraine  Consultations 
requested on 
13/10/2017 
(WT/DS/532/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
50 STC 289  WT/DS540  United States - 
Certain Measures 
Concerning 
Pangasius Seafood 
Products from Viet 
Nam  Viet Nam's c omplaint with 
respect to certain US 
measures concerning 
pangasius seafood 
products  Consultations 
requested on 
22/02/2018 
(WT/DS/540/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
51 CMA STC 
58  WT/DS589  China - Measures 
Concerning the 
Importation of 
Canola Seed from 
Canada  Canada's complaint with 
respect China's measures 
concerning the 
importation of canola seed 
from Canada  Consultations 
requested on 
09/09/2019 
(WT/DS589/1 ) Panel established on 26/07/2021  
Panel composed on 10/11/2021  
Authority for panel lapsed on 31/08/2023   
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 58 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
52 STC 495  WT/DS599  Panama - Measures 
Concerning the 
Importation of 
Certain Products 
from Costa Rica  Costa Rica's complaint 
with respect to Panama's 
measures on the 
importation of a number 
of products originating in 
Costa Rica, including: 
strawberries, dairy 
products, bovine, pork, 
poultry and turkey meat 
products, fish food, fresh 
pineapple, and plantains 
and bananas  Consultations 
requested on 
11/01/2021 
(WT/DS599/1 ) Panel established on 27/09/2021  
Panel composed  on 24/01/2022  
53 STC 432  WT/DS607  European Union - 
Measures Concerning 
the Impo rtation of 
Certain Poultry Meat 
Preparations from 
Brazil  Brazil's complaint with 
respect to the EU's 
application of Salmonella  
food safety criteria on 
fresh poultry meat and 
certain poultry meat 
preparations, and the 
appropriate level of 
sanitary protection to 
address risks to human 
health from the 
contamination of 
Salmonella  Consultations 
requested on 
08/11/2021 
(WT/DS607/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
54 May relate 
to CMA 
STC 58  WT/DS610  China - Measures 
Concerning Trade in 
Goods  EU's complaint with 
respect to China's 
measures restricting the  
trade in goods from or to 
Lithuania or linked to 
Lithuania   Consultations 
requested on 
27/01/2022 
(WT/DS610/1 ) Panel established on 27/01/2023  
Panel composed  on 18/04/2023  
Suspension of Panel work on 25/01/2024  
55 N/A WT/DS613  European Union 
- Measures 
Concerning the 
Importation of Citrus 
Fruit from South 
Africa  South Africa's complaint 
with respect to the EU's 
regime relating to 
Thaumatotibia leucotreta  
(false codling moth) 
governing the importation 
of citrus fruits from South 
Africa  Consultations 
requested on 
27/07/2022 
(WT/DS613/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute   
  G/SPS/GEN/2223  
 
- 59 -   Relevant 
STC DS Number  DS Title  Nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Status  
56 STC 356  WT/DS624  European Union — 
Additional Measures 
Concerning the 
Importation of Citrus 
Fruit from South 
Africa  South Africa's complaint 
with respect to the  EU's 
regime relating to P  
citricarpa   (citrus black 
spot) governing the 
importation of citrus fruits 
from South Africa  Consultations 
requested on 
15/04/2024 
(WT/DS624/1 ) No further official information on the status of the dispute  
 
* DS320, DS321: There were no claims under the SPS Agreement. However, one of the issues of concern concerned the EC implementation of the ru lings in DS26 and DS48 and, 
hence, the SPS Agreement was relevant to these disputes  
__________