G/SPS/W/324  
 
13 May 2020  
(20-3577) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
FIFTH REVIEW OF THE OPERAT ION AND IMPLEMENTATI ON OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION O F SANITARY AND PHYTO SANITARY MEASURES  
COMPILAT ION OF COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  ON THE REVISED DRAFT RE PORT OF THE 
FIFTH REVIEW ( G/SPS/W/313/REV.2  AND G/SPS/W/313/REV.2/AD D.1) 
Note by the Secretariat1 
This compilation includes Members' submitted comments on the revised draft Report of the 
Fifth Review (documents G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  and G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 ).2 In addition, 
included in this compila tion are Members' comments on the US submission  (G/SPS/W/323 ) which 
also p rovides comments on the recommendations  in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 .  
Section 1 provides a compilation of Member's comments on  Part A of the revised draft Report of the 
Fifth Review (i.e. the section  on proposals, G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ), including comments on the 
recommendations and other more general comments. Section 2 provides a compilation of Members' 
comments on Part B of the revised draft Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. the factual section, 
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 ). 
SECTION 1 – MEMBERS' COMMENTS ON  PART A OF THE REVISED DRAFT RE PORT OF THE 
FIFTH REVIEW ( SECTION ON PROPOSAL S, G/SPS/W/313/REV.2 )  
1  APPROPRIATE LEVEL  OF PROTECTION, RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCIEN CE 
1.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 2.15 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ 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 circumstances and scientific evidence emerge  and international 
standards, guideline s, and recommendations, are developed and updated  by Codex, the 
OIE, or the IPPC.  
▪ The Committee should continue to discuss the topic of risk, including management of 
situations involving insufficient 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 Committ ee invites ISSBs to share examples of efforts to consider scientific uncertainty 
and/or insufficiency of scientific evidence in risk analysis and the development of 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 Members' previous comments on the draft Report of the Fifth Review are available in documents 
G/SPS/W/315 (and revisions) , and G/SPS/W/318 (and revisions) . G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.1  Canada  
1.2.  Canada has a suggested revision to the last recommendation:  
▪ The Committee invites ISSBs to share guidance documents, international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations pertaining to the consideration of  examples of efforts to 
consider  scientific uncertainty and/or  insufficiency of scientific evidence in risk analysis 
and the development of international standards, guidelines and recommendations . 
1.2  India  
1.3.  We note that the recommendations make a reference to "scientific uncertainty and/or 
insufficiency of scientific evidence " in risk analysis as well as development and implementation of 
measures. While Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement pertains to a situation where the relevant scientific 
evidence is insufficient, the SPS Agreement does not refer to the conc ept of "scientific uncertainty ". 
India would like to seek a clarification regarding the legal basis of the term, "scientific uncertainty ".  
2  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDU RES (ANNEX C)  
2.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 3.11 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ The Committee should continue discus sions 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.  
▪ Following the fruitful exchange of experiences and ideas at the November 2019 
SPS Committee Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create 
an electronic working group open to the pa rticipation of all Members and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic working group, 
outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , 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 i nternational 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.  
2.1  Canada  
2.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the draft Report of the Fifth Review.  
2.3.  Canada does not support the suggested revision from the United States in G/SPS/W/323  to 
remove reference to the working group proposal; Canada considers it important to include the 
reference to the proposal ( G/SPS/W/321 ) in the recommendation, since the proposal provides 
further detail and context for the establishment of the working group.  
2.2  India  
2.4.  Rather than reference G/SPS/W/321 , we suggest that the topics that the e -Working Group 
could explore, are listed directly in the recommendations themselves.  G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3  Korea, Republic of  
2.5.  Korea, Republic of  submits  the following comments on the recommendations of the draft Report 
in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 . We would lik e to delete the following sentences, for  a more flexible approach 
to the electronic working group  (recommendations in paragraph 3.11):  
▪ The Committee should continue discussions and information exchange on the topic of 
control, inspection and approval proc edures. 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.  
▪ Following the fruitful exchange of experiences and ideas at the November 2019 
SPS Committee Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create 
an electronic working group open to the participation of all Members and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic working group, 
outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , could explore the:  
v. Key challenges of approval procedures that impact international trade that 
Members should seek to address;  
vi. Principles of approval procedures that facilitate international trade while meeting 
the importing Member 's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection;  
vii. Available tools and best practices to enhance the implementation of the obligations 
of the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval procedures; and  
viii. Possible future work of the Committee on this t opic. 
2.4  United Kingdom  
2.6.  The United Kingdom supports the recommendation to consider Annex C as a standalone item 
on the agenda to facilitate an exchange of views.  
2.5  United States3 
2.7.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ The Committee should continue discussions and information e xchange 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 shar e 
information on this topic.  
▪ Following the fruitful exchange of experiences and ideas at the November 2019 
SPS Committee Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create 
an electronic working group open to the participation of all Memb ers and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic working group,  
outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , The electronic 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;  
 
3 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 4 - 
 
  iii. Available tools and best practices to enhance the implementation of the obligatio ns 
of the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval procedures; and  
iv. Possible future work of the Committee on this topic.  
2.8.  Comments from the United States on its suggested edits for the second recommendation on 
control, inspection and approval procedures in re lation to the revised text " The electronic working 
group,  outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , The electronic working group  could explore the…" : 
a. Rather than reference G/SPS/W/321 , we suggest the recommendation list the topics that 
the eWG "could" explore. That way, the eWG can take up the elements of interest to 
Members.  
3  EQUIVALENCE  
3.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 4.12 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ Members are encouraged to notify any agreement reached on the recognition of 
equivalence.  
▪ Given the importance of Article 4 on equivalence and of the Committee's Decision on the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement (Equivalence),32 the Committe e 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 .  
▪ Members are encouraged to coordinate with their Codex, OIE, and IPPC representatives 
and experts to highlight the importance of understanding trade impacts during the 
development and discussion of international standards, guidelines, and recommendations  
on the issue of equivalence.  
Footnote 32 : G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . 
3.1  Canada  
3.2.  Canad a supports the recommendations in the draft report of the Fifth Review and the revisions 
to the recommendations made by the United States in G/SPS/W/323 .  
3.2  United States4 
3.3.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ Members are encouraged to notify any agreement reached on the recognition of 
equivalence.  
▪ Given the importance of Article 4 on equivalence and of the Committee's Decision on the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement (Equivalence),5 the Committee should 
continue discussions and information ex change 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.  
▪ Members SPS Committee representatives  are encou raged to coordinate with their 
country's  Codex, OIE, and IPPC representatives and experts to highlight the importance 
of understanding trade impacts during the development and discussion of international 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations ISSB disc ussions that bear  on the issue of 
equivalence.  
 
4 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . 
5 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.4.  Comments from the United States on its suggested edits for the second recommendation on 
equivalence in relation to the deleted text " Given the importance of Article 4 on equivalence and of 
the Committee's Deci sion on the Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement (Equivalence),6": 
a. On further reflection, we would prefer not to single out specific obligations as "important" 
or to reaffirm. The SPS Agreement lays out a balance of rights and obligations.  
3.5.  Comm ents from the United States on its suggested edits for the third recommendation on 
equivalence in relation to the revised text "… ISSB discussions that bear  on the issue of 
equivalence …": 
a. We would like this to refer to ISSB discussions bearing on equivalence more broadly. This 
accounts for the trade significance of discussions that bear on equivalence but that are not 
about the development of standards, guidelines, or recommendations specifically focused on 
the general topic of equivalence; and thi s ensures the relevance of the 5th Review 
recommendation regardless of how ISSB agendas and discussions evolve.  
4  FALL ARMYWORM  
4.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 5.16 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ Members sho uld continue to exchange experiences on efficient, predictable and science -
based regulatory approaches that help to mitigate the effect of fall armyworm on trade 
while safeguarding human, animal and plant health and life, and taking into account 
specific n eeds of smallholdings.  
▪ As appropriate, Members are encouraged to request technical assistance to support efforts 
to improve their integrated pest management strategies and, where needed, their 
regulatory approach to pre -market approval and inspection syste ms, with the goal of, inter 
alia, enabling greater access to products that strengthen host plant resistance.  
▪ Members are encouraged to continue discussion of the concepts identified in G/SPS/W/317  
that aim to assist Members, particularly those with capacity constraints, to address SPS 
challenges, in the SPS Committee, including where appropriate in the electronic working 
group on approval procedures established pursuant to the proposal by Canada in 
G/SPS/W/321 . 
4.1  Canada  
4.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the draft report of the Fifth Review and the revisions 
to the recomm endations made by the United States in G/SPS/W/323 .  
4.3.  Canada welcomes discu ssion of the concepts identified in G/SPS/W/317  in the electronic 
working group on approval procedures, which was proposed by Canada in G/SPS/W/321 . 
4.2  India  
4.4.  We find that there are certain ambiguities in the text of the recommendations:  
a. How does the Membership understand the term "smallholdings "? It is a term neither used 
in the SPS Agreement nor in G/SPS/W/317 .  
b. It is unclear what kind of technical assistance is envisaged/expected in paragraph 2 of the 
recommendations. Is the technical assistance expected from the Membership or the 
Secretariat? If the former, are the contours of  the technical assistance to be guided by 
Article 9 of the SPS Agreement which deals with the subject, or does it go beyond the 
scope of Article 9? We may consider making a reference to Article 9 in the second 
paragraph if we want the level of obligation o n the non -requesting Members to be limited 
to "facilitate(ing) the provision of technical assistance to other Members, especially 
 
6 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 6 - 
 
  developing country Members, either bilaterally or through the appropriate international 
organizations. "  
c. With respect to the t hird paragraph of the recommendations, the stakeholders had earlier 
identified certain problems with the various concepts listed in G/SPS/W/317 . In India 's 
comments on G/SPS/W/318, where it was proposed to recognise the concepts of: i) data 
portability; (ii) common application dossiers; (i ii) joint risk assessments; (iv) adaptation 
to regional conditions; (v) unilateral recognition; (vi) mutual recognition; (vii) familiarity; 
(viii) history of safe use; (ix) equivalence; (x) harmonization; and (xi) emergency use 
authorization, India has ask ed the following questions:  
i. Are the concepts being proposed to address the SPS challenges relating to FAW 
voluntary in nature or are they to be adhered to in a prescriptive manner?  
ii. Is the list of concepts exhaustive or is it merely an indicative/inclusive one? 
iii. With respect to the following:  
1) Data portability;  
2) Common application dossiers;  
3) Joint risk assessments;  
4) Familiarity  
5) History of safe use; and  
6) Emergency use authorization.  
What is the legal basis for these concepts under the SPS Agreement? Do the 
concepts adhere to the requirements specified under the SPS Agreement or are 
some of them SPS -plus?" 
d. We note that the recommendation now is only an encouragement to continue discussion 
on these concepts, including through the electronic working group. We w ould still 
encourage the proponents to provide written answers to above -mentioned questions that 
India has raised on the Fall Army Worm proposal.  
4.3  Chinese Taipei  
4.5.  Our comments on the document G/SPS/W/323  are to point 4 on fall armyworm , where the 
United States suggests to replace "smallholdings" to "smallholder farm families". Bec ause the 
definition of "family" might be different among the 164 WTO Members, and in some Members, it 
might mean a much bigger family than in the United States, we consider whether it might be clearer 
to use "smallholders" or "smallholdings" to represent the idea of "small".  
4.4  United States7 
4.6.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ Members should continue to exchange experiences on efficient, predictable and 
science -based regulatory approaches that help to mitigate the effect of fall armyworm on 
trade while safeguar ding and that also safeguard  human, animal and plant health and life , 
and taking into  account for the  specific needs of smallholdings smallholder farm families . 
 
7 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate  document  G/SPS/W/323 . G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 7 - 
 
  ▪ As appropriate, Members are encouraged to request technical assistance to support efforts 
to im prove their integrated pest management strategies and, where needed, their 
regulatory approach to pre -market approval and inspection systems, with the goal of, 
inter alia, enabling greater access to products that strengthen host plant resistance.  
▪ Members a re encouraged to continue discussion of the concepts identified in G/SPS/W/317  
that aim to assist Members, particularly those with capacity constraints, to address SPS 
challenges, in the SPS Committee , including and, where appropriate , in the electronic 
working group on approval procedures established pursuan t referred  to in paragraph 
[insert relevant 5th Revision paragraph with  the proposal by Canada in G/SPS/W/321 . eWG 
recommendation] above.  
4.7.  Comments  from the United States on its suggested edits for the first  recommen dation on fall 
armyworm in relation to the revised text "… smallholder farm families. ": 
a. The "smallholding" would be the land itself, which would not have needs. The original 
"smallholder farm families" seems more appropriate.  
4.8.  Comments from the United States  on its suggested edits for the third recommendation on fall 
armyworm in relation to the revised text "…  established pursuan t referred  to in paragraph [insert 
relevant 5th Revision paragraph with  the proposal by Canada in G/SPS/W/321 . eWG 
recommendation] abo ve.": 
a. Due to confusion about what "established pursuant to the proposal by Canada" would bring 
in, refer to the eWG in this way.  
5  NATIONAL SPS COORDIN ATION MECHANISMS  
5.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 6.7 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ 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 consistent with the 
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 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination with particular 
attention to the concepts and questions outlined in G/SPS/W/297 , and including additional 
resources as suggested by Members.   
5.1  Canada  
5.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the draft report of the Fifth Review and the revisions 
to the recommendations made by the United States in G/SPS/W/323 .  
5.3.  Canada is uncertain of the necessity to emphasize in the last recommendation the development 
of the collection of resources with particular attention on the concepts and questions outlined in 
G/SPS/W/297 . Rather the collection of resources shou ld focus on the resources discussed during the 
Workshop on Transparency and Coordination. If desired, Members could suggest additional 
resources to the Secretariat based on the concepts and questions outline in G/SPS/W/297  or other 
experiences.  G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 8 - 
 
  5.2  Korea, Republic of  
5.4.  Korea, Republic of  submits  the following comments on the Recommen dations of  the d raft 
Report in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 . We would like to delete the following sentences, for  a more flexible 
approach to the National SPS coordination mechanisms  (recommendations in paragraph 6.7). 
▪ Members are encouraged to implement appropriate national coordination mechani sms to 
enable consultation and communication between relevant technical and trade policy 
experts to enable the development of coordinated SPS positions consistent with the 
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 mechanism s, starting with 
those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination with particular 
attention to the concepts and questions outlined in G/SPS/W/297 , and including additional 
resources as suggested by Members.   
5.3  United States8 
5.5.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ 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 
the 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 mechani sms 
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 Secretaria t 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 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination with particular 
attention to the concepts and questions outlined in G/SPS/W/297 , and including additional 
resources as suggested by Members.  
5.6.  Comments from the United States on its suggested edit for the first recommendation on 
national SPS coordination mechanisms:  
a. To be clear that we want the positions to be consistent with the SPS A greement – and that 
we are not saying there is an SPS Agreement requirement for internally coordinated 
positions.  
6  NOTIFICATION PROCEDU RES AND TRANSPARENCY  
6.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 7.13 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ Members are  encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notifications when a 
measure has been notified to another Committee.51 Members should include this 
 
8 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/ W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 9 - 
 
  information under the point of the notification format titled "Other relevant documents 
and language(s ) in which these are available".52 
Footnote 51 : 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.  
Footnote 52 : In the Committee's Recommended Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.4) , the 
explanatory sections of the notification formats in An nex A -1 and Annex B -1 indicate that this type of 
information should be included in the notification format under the point titled "Description of content". 
This section would have to be updated if the Committee agreed that this information should be includ ed 
under the point titled "Other relevant documents and language(s) in which these are available" . 
 
6.1  Argentina  
6.2.  Argentina does not consider it necessary to remove footnote 51 from document 
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  because there is nothing to indicate that it might create confusion, as a rgued 
by the United States. On the contrary, it considers that the reference to document G/SPS/7/Rev.4  
is relevant, in that the section in question mentions that it is preferable, in addition to notifying both 
the SPS Committee and the TBT Committee when a measure falls under both the SPS and TBT 
Agreements, to indicate which parts of the measure fall under each respective agreement. Such an 
indication could facilitate the analysis and processing of notifications, especially in countries with 
fewer resources, thereby generating greater transparency.  
6.3.  On the other hand, Argentina agrees with the comments made by the United States regarding 
the removal of footnote 52 from document G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 , given that it proposes that 
indication of whether the measure has also been notified to the TBT Committee should b e included 
in point 9 ("Other relevant documents"), while document G/SPS/7/Rev.4  recommends that point 6 
("Description of content") should include an indication of which parts of a measure subject to double 
notification fall under the SPS Agreement and which parts fall under the TBT Agreement.  
6.2  Canada  
6.4.  Canada supports the recommendation in the draft report of the Fifth Review.  
6.5.  Regarding the US comments in G/SPS/W/323 , Canada supports the deletion of the second 
footnote.  
6.6.  However, Canada sees value in the inclusion of the first footnote and does not consider that 
this footnote would lead to confusion.  
6.3  United S tates9 
6.7.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notifications when a 
measure has been notified to another Committee.10 Members should include this 
information under the point of the notification format titled "Other relevant documents 
and language(s) in which these are available".11 
 
9 The United States also s ubmitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . 
10 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.  
11 In the Committee's Recommended Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.4) , the explanatory 
sections of the notification formats in Annex A -1 and Annex B -1 indicate that this type of information should be 
included in the notification format under the point titled "Description of content" . This section would have to 
be updated if the Committee agreed that this information should be included under the point titled "Other 
relevant documents and language(s) in which these are available" . G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 10 - 
 
  6.8.  Comments from the United States on its suggested edit for the recommendation on notification 
procedures and transparency:  
a. We do not believe that the footnotes should be included. These footnotes are slightly off 
point in ways that could create confusion.  
b. We feel the content of footnote 4  (i.e. the second footnote)  is inaccurate. Box 6, description 
of content, suggests identifying which parts of a dual -notified measure are  SPS and which 
TBT. 
c. The new proposed notification for box 9 (other relevant documents ) would indicate whether 
the measure was also notified to the TBT committee. Whether it has been dually notified is 
different from the question of which parts are SPS and which TBT.  
7  MRLS FOR PLANT PROTE CTION PRODUCTS  
7.1.  Recommendations  (Parag raph 8.6 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ The Committee encourages Members to engage in national discussions of options that 
could enable a more productive Codex MRL system; and in particular, to discuss ways to 
achieve sustainable funding for the joint FAO/WHO scientific bodies. Such national 
discussions of options with respect to the MRL system would take place in the context of 
national resource availability, and could involve consideration of, inter alia, options for 
increasing support to JMPR, including increasing representative expert part icipation and 
other forms of support for the scientific bodies, and options for encouraging programmes 
to support submission of data from developing countries, especially on minor crops. The 
Committee invites regular updates from Codex on its progress in t he 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 predictability 
worldwide on MRLs, by inter alia: ( 1) notifying all proposed changes to their MRLs, 
including changes to MRLs that are based on international standards; and (2) reviewing 
and improving their ability to take the comments of their trading partners meaningfully 
into account when considering pr oposed 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 initiatives on MRLs. The Committee notes that s uch 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 
relevant, in order to facilitate trade.  
▪ The Committee in vites 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 
stewardshi p of lower -risk alternative pesticides in their countries. The Committee also 
invites Members to evaluate their own minor use needs and to collaborate in global data -
generation activities.  
7.1  Argentina  
7.2.  The recommendations contained in the report are in line w ith those proposed in document 
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 , which was submitte d by Argentina together with other Members. It is 
considered particularly important to include in the report the recommendations put forward in this 
document, with the wording as proposed.  
7.2  Canada  
7.3.  As a cosponsor of this proposal, Canada supports the recommendations.  G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 11 - 
 
  8  REGIONALIZATION  
8.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 9.15 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ 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 Expedit ed 
Process (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 regionali zation, 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 conditi ons with respect 
to specific plant pests or animal diseases; and recognizing regional conditions of another 
Member with respect to specific plant pests or animal diseases.  
▪ Members appreciate the information shared by OIE and IPPC on their activities in sup port 
of 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 
standards.  
▪ 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.  
8.1  Canada  
8.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the draft re port of the Fifth Review.  
8.2  Peru  
8.3.  Regarding the draft Report of the Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement (G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ), Peru would like to submit the following proposal for the first 
bullet for point 9.15 ( the recommendations contained in the regionalization subheading) to include 
"and processed products ," to read as following:  
▪ The Committee recognizes the importance of regionalization to safe trade in agricultural 
products and processed products . The Committee e ncourages Members to respond to 
requests from other Members concerning regionalization in a timely manner and to avoid 
unnecessary requests for information.  
8.3  Chinese Taipei  
8.4.  Our comments on the draft Report of the 5th Review  are in relation to the recommenda tion 
(point 3) on regionalization in paragraph 9.15 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 : 
▪ "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."  
8.5.  Based on data protection as well as securing another Member 's rights, it is not suggested for 
Members to share another Member 's informatio n on requesting recognition of pest - or disease -free G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 12 - 
 
  areas. Thus, we suggest to delete "including on how another Member may request recognition of 
pest- or disease -free areas. " 
8.4  United Kingdom  
8.6.  The United Kingdom recommends the Committee to consider compartm entalisation in parallel.  
9  ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDRESSIN G SPECIFIC TRADE CON CERNS  
9.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 10.12 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited to provide information on relevant 
standards, guidelines and recommendations in the SPS Committee meetings.  
▪ The Committee may continue to consider the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in addressing 
specific trade concerns.  
9.1  Argentina  
9.2.  Argentina considers that the amendment proposed by the United States to the first point of 
recommendation 10.12 changes the content of that recommendation. In this connection, the original 
recommendation was addressed to the C odex, IPPC and OIE, which were invited to provide 
information on their standards in SPS Committee meetings.  
9.3.  If the amendments suggested by the United States were to be implemented, the 
recommendation would be addressed to the Members of the Committee, who would be encouraged 
to hold consultations within the framework of these standard setting bodies to obtain advice  and 
guidance when a specific trade concern arises with respect to the standards of these bodies.  
9.4.  Given the above, it would be advisable to keep the original wording of the first 
recommendation, which does not preclude the possible inclusion of the United States' proposal as 
an additional recommendation.  
9.2  Canada  
9.5.  Canada supports the recommendations as stated in the draft  Report  of the Fifth Review.  
9.6.  However, Canada has additional revisions (in italics) for the first recommendation as revised 
by the United Sta tes in G/SPS/W/323 :  
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited  Committee encourages Members  to 
provide information on  consult with their relevant ISSB experts  for advice and counsel  
when a specific trade concern arises regarding one of the ISSB's  relevant  standards, 
guidelines and or recommendations in the SPS Committee meetings . 
 
9.7.  Canada considers that this recommendation should be related to Members seeking advice from 
their domestic ISSB experts in advance of the SPS Committee rather than seeking advice from the 
ISSBs themselves.  
9.3  India  
9.8.  We note that Article 12 .6 of the SPS Agreement states:  
"The Committee may, on the basis of an initiative from one of the Members, through 
appropriate channels invite the relevant international organizations or their subsidiary bodies 
to examine specific matters with respect to a  particular standard, guideline or 
recommendation, including the basis of explanations for non -use given according to 
paragraph  4." G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 13 - 
 
  9.9.  We would prefer replacing the term "addressing specific trade concerns " in the second 
recommendation, with "with respect to specific trade concerns ". This would ensure that the process 
in the Committee with respect to the STCs, remains Member -driven.  
9.4  United Kingdom  
9.10.   The U nited Kingdom  suggests this alternative phrasing  for the first recommendation : 
▪ The Committee encourages Members to consult with the relevant ISSB for advice and 
counsel when a specific trade concern arises regarding one of the ISSB 's standards, 
guidelines or recommendations.  
9.11.   The U nited Kingdom  suggests this alternative phrasing  for the second reco mmendation : 
▪ The Committee may continue to consider the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE with respect to 
specific trade concerns.  
9.5  United States12 
9.12.   The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies are i nvited Committee encourages Members to  
provide information on consult with the relevant ISSB for advice and counsel when a specific  
trade concern arises regarding one of the ISSB's  standards, guidelines andor 
recommendations in the SPS Committee meetings . 
▪ The Committee may continue to consider the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in addressing with 
respect to specific trade concerns.  
9.13.   Comments from the United States on its suggested edit in the second recommendation on 
the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in relation to  the revised text "  in addressing with respect to …": 
a. Current phrasing presumes they have a role in "addressing" the concerns. That would 
misunderstand the permissible role of ISSBs.  
10  GENERAL COMMENTS  
10.1  Argentina  
10.1.   Argentina thanks the Secretariat for preparing the documents for the Fifth Review of the SPS 
Agreement, which reflect the discussions held so far. We also thank the United States for the 
comments that they submitted, which are broadly shared.  
10.2.   However, it draws attention to its comments  above . 
10.2  European Union  
10.3.   Regarding G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  and G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 , we have no further  
comments on the text.  
10.3  Turkey  
10.4.   As the SPS working group of Turkey, we would like to inform you that we have no comments 
on the documents.  
 
12 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate documen t G/SPS/W/323 . G/SPS/W/324  
 
- 14 - 
 
  SECTION 2 – MEMBERS'  COMMENTS ON PART B OF THE REVISED DRAFT RE PORT OF THE 
FIFTH REVIEW  (FACTUAL SECTION,  G/SPS/W/313/REV.2 /ADD.1 )  
10.4  European Union  
10.5.   Regarding G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  and G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 , we have no further 
comments on the text. We understand th e temporal scope of the report is 2014 -2019. We would be 
interested in the factual report including a reference to EU GEN document on Technical Assistance 
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.5). Although circulated prior to the meeting of March, the report covers the 
period 2017 -2018.  
10.5  Turkey  
10.6.   As the SPS working group of Turkey, we would like to inform you that we have no comments 
on the documents.  
10.6  United States  
10.7.   Please refer to the comments  from the United States  on G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1  in 
document G/SPS/W/ 326.  
 
__________