G/SPS/GEN/1776  
 
8 May 2020 
(20-3507) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE  PROCEDURE TO MONITOR  THE PROCESS  
OF INTERNATIONAL HAR MONIZATION  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  At its meeting of 15 -16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement. The Committee 
extended the provisional monitoring procedure in 1999, 2001, and 2003, and revis ed the procedure 
in October 2004.2 In 2006, the Committee agreed to extend the provisional procedure indefinitely, 
and to review its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the operation and 
implementation of the Agreement under Article 12. 7.3 The procedure was reviewed as part of the 
Third Review of the Agreement4, and again in the context of the Fourth Review.5 
1.2.  The Committee has previously considered twenty -one annual reports on the monitoring 
procedure.6 These reports summarize several st andards -related issues that the Committee  has 
considered and the responses received from the relevant standard -setting organizations.  
This current report includes the issues that were considered in the June and November 2019 
Committee meetings.7 
2  NEW ISSUES  
2.1.  Since the 201 9 Annual Report, one new issue has been raised under this procedure : (i) Codex 
task force on antimicrobial resistance.  
2.1  Codex task force on antimicrobial resistance  
2.2.  At the November 2019 Committee meeting, the United States expressed its commitment to 
addressing AMR through sound science and collaboration in Codex. The US statement has been 
circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1751 . 
2.3.  Argentina highlighted its interest in this topic and referred to its intervention under item 2(a) 
of the age nda of the meeting ,8 providing information on its National Programme for Antimicrobial 
Resistance (AMR) Surveillance in animals for human consumption and drawing attention to its 
submitted  document G/SPS/GEN/1742 . Argentina shared the concerns related to the developments 
in the Codex  task force on antimicrobial resistance, since the impact of antimicrobials on the 
environment was not clear, and more research on the topic was necessary. Argentina also agreed 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the position of Members  or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/SPS/14 , G/SPS/17 , G/SPS/25  and G/SPS/11/Rev.1 . 
3 G/SPS/40 . 
4 G/SPS/53 . 
5 The draft report of the Fourth Review is contained in document G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2 . 
6 These were circulated as G/SPS/13 , G/SPS/16 , G/SPS/18 , G/SPS/21 , G/SPS/28 , G/SPS/31 , G/SPS/37 , 
G/SPS/42 , G/SPS/45 , G/SPS/49 , G/SPS/51 , G/SPS/54 , G/SPS/56 , G/SPS/59 , G/SPS/60 , G/SPS/GEN/1332 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1411 , G/SPS/GEN/1490 , G/SPS/GEN/1550 , G/SPS/GEN/1617  and G/SPS/GEN/1710 . 
7 This report would als o normally include the issues discussed in the March 2020 SPS Committee 
meeting, however this meeting was postponed. See document JOB/SPS/5/Rev.1/Corr.1 . 
8 G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1 , paragraph 2.3.  G/SPS/GEN/1776  
 
- 2 - 
 
  with the United States on the need to have a national risk surveillance and mi tigation system for 
human, animal, and plant life and health. No action should be taken before enough scientific 
evidence was available.  
2.4.  Australia supported the joint work of WHO, the OIE, and FAO in setting international standards 
for AMR. Australia highl ighted the need of retaining access to effective antimicrobials to protect 
animal health and of basing measures to prevent and reduce AMR on international standards 
supported by scientific data, since doing the opposite could distort trade. Australia reite rated its 
commitment to an effective and robust system for the prevention and containment of AMR, evident 
in its adoption of one of the most conservative approaches to the use of antimicrobials in livestock 
production in the world. Nevertheless, Australia recognized the importance for its livestock sector of 
retaining access to antimicrobials to treat, prevent and control diseases because of their significance 
for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and production. Australia was concerned that any 
measur es to restrict access to the prophylactic use of antimicrobials in food animals would have 
significant adverse impacts on exports of livestock animal products. Australia encouraged Members 
to adhere to their international obligations, since unilateral proc edures had the potential to 
undermine collaborative global efforts. Finally, Australia confirmed its participation in the seventh 
meeting of the intergovernmental task force on AMR to discuss, and potentially finalize, the revised 
Codex Code of Practice to  Minimise and Contain AMR and draft Guidelines on Integrated Monitoring 
and Surveillance of Foodborne AMR.  
2.5.  Codex recalled its prior intervention regarding the circulation of the Guidelines on Surveillance 
and the Code of Practice for comments from Codex me mbers and observers and underscored their 
importance for progress in the upcoming session.  
2.6.  The European Union expressed concerns regarding the discussion of the work of the Codex 
task force in the Committee and questioned the relationship of this issue wi th the current item of 
the agenda, the monitoring of the use of international standards. The European Union recalled talks 
on the lack of a hierarchical relationship between the Committee and ISSBs.  
2.7.  The United States called Members' attention to the Committee's mandate in Article 12.4 of the 
SPS Agreement, as well as the direction given in G/SPS/11/Rev.1 , that the Committee should help 
identify, for the benefit of relevant international organizations, where standards, guidelines  or 
recommendations were needed, or where existing ones were not appropriate. The United States 
welcomed further engagement about the potential trade impact of Codex standards and guidelines 
under development and considered that the Committee's mandate was clear.  
3  PREVIOUS ISSUES  
3.1.  Since the 2019 Annual Report, there was further discussion on three issues previously raised 
under this procedure  regarding : (i) ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard; (ii) HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard ; and (i ii) Use of 
the Codex international standard on glyphosate.  
3.1  ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  
3.2.  At the July 2019  Committee meeting , the European Union drew the attenti on of Members to 
inconsistencies in the application of OIE international standards, in this case regarding ASF. 
The European Union noted that several WTO Members did not follow the OIE Terrestrial Code 
recommendations that had been developed and adopted wi th the support of those same Members, 
on surveillance, designation of containment and disease -free zones, and for the identification, 
treatment and certification of tradable products. ASF  was a very serious disease but it could be 
managed effectively to ma ke sure that legitimate trade did not the cause any outbreak. 
The European Union had demonstrated through its strict regionalisation policy, that the disease had 
not been transmitted via commercial trade. In addition, the European Union was transparent on its 
disease control measures and provided information through the web sites of the EU Commission, of 
the EU member States and of the OIE, and through bilateral contacts with trade partners. 
The European Union strongly urged WTO Members to align their impor t measures with the 
SPS Agreement and with international standards, and stood ready to work with Members to remove 
country -wide bans.  G/SPS/GEN/1776  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.3.  In November 2019, the European Union drew Members' attention to inconsistencies in the 
application of OIE  international st andards, in this case regarding ASF. The European Union noted 
that several WTO  Members did not follow the OIE Terrestrial Code recommendations that had been 
developed and adopted with the support of those same Members. The European Union had 
demonstrated t hrough its regionalization policy, that the disease had not been transmitted via 
commercial trade. In addition, the European Union was transparent on its disease control measures 
and provided information through the websites of the EU Commission, of the EU  member States and 
of the OIE, and through bilateral contacts with trade partners. The European Union strongly urged 
WTO Members to align their import measures with the SPS Agreement and with international 
standards  and stood ready to work with Members to remove country -wide bans.  
3.2  HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  
3.4.  At the July 2019 Committee meeting,  the European Union praised those Members that 
recogni zed EU regionalization measures, trusting  the European Union's effective and transparent 
system of control and eradicati on of animal diseases like AI. Regarding regionalisation for HPAI, the 
European Union highlighted the inconsistency in the application by some WTO Members of the OIE 
internation al standards, and their obligations under the SPS Agreement's Article 6 and Annex C. 
Country -wide bans after a disease outbreak were not scientifically justified, and there was no 
justification to wait one year or more to restore the disease -free status, i nstead of the three months 
defined by the OIE Code. The veterinary services of all EU member States worked in a transparent 
manner and the audit and analysis service of the European Commission published regular public 
audit reports. The European Union reit erated its call to all Members to respect their regionalisation 
obligations; allow trade of all safe products from non -affected zones; lift all bans after regaining 
freedom three months after the application of stamping -out, cleaning and disinfection of al l affected 
premises; refrain from imposing trade restriction in case of HPAI in wild birds; and refrain from 
imposing trade restriction in case of detected HPAI.  
3.5.  The United States underscored the importance of OIE guidelines related to HPAI and their 
contribution to facilitating safe trade in live poultry and poultry products. The United States 
highlighted that according to OIE guidelines for HPAI, free status could be regained quicker in a 
previously free country if it applied a stamping out policy that in cluded disinfection of all affected 
establishments, provided the country carried out appropriate surveillance. The OIE provided an 
incentive for Members to implement an effective stamping out policy and to conduct robust 
surveillance to provide clear evide nce and guarantees of eradication of HPAI. The United States 
expressed concern that restrictions on poultry meat or products subjected to treatment, such as 
heat treatment that mitigated the HPAI virus, lacked scientific justification. The United States ha d 
been free of HPAI per OIE guidelines since August 2017. While many trading partners had lifted their 
HPAI-related restrictions on US poultry imports, some restrictions remained in place, which the 
United States urged Members to lift.  
3.6.  The OIE brought Memb ers attention to Chapter 10.4 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 
Infection with Avian Influenza Viruses, which was under a comprehensive revision because of a lack 
of compliance noted by OIE members. The revision sought to remove misunderstandings in t he 
interpretation of standards. A draft of the revised chapter had been circulated to OIE members for 
comments and the OIE meeting in September 2019 would advance that work. OIE recommended 
Members to contact their national OIE delegates in order to make c omments and follow the progress 
of the revision before it was proposed for adoption in 2020 or 2021.  
3.7.  In November 2019, the European Union praised those Members that had recognize d EU 
regionalization measures,  trusting the European Union's effective and tra nsparent system of control 
and eradication of animal diseases such as AI. Regarding regionalization for HPAI, the European 
Union highlighted the inconsistency in some WTO Members' application of the OIE international 
standards and their obligations under t he SPS Agreement's Article 6 and Annex C. Country -wide 
bans after a disease outbreak were not scientifically justified, and there was no justification to wait 
one year or more to restore the disease -free status, instead of the three months defined by the O IE 
Code. The veterinary services of all EU member States worked in a transparent manner and the 
trading partners of the European Union could be assured that they would be fully aware of the animal 
health situation in all EU member States. The European Unio n reiterated its call to all Members to 
respect their regionalization obligations; allow trade of all safe products from non -affected zones; 
lift all bans after regaining freedom three months after the application of stamping -out, cleaning and G/SPS/GEN/1776  
 
- 4 - 
 
  disinfecting  affected premises; refrain from imposing trade restriction in case of HPAI in wild birds; 
and refrain from imposing trade restrictions in case of detected LPAI.  
3.8.  The United States underscored the importance of OIE guidelines related to HPAI and of 
Members respecting the application of regionalization in case of HPAI and reaffirmed its strong 
cooperation with the European Union in this area.  
3.3  Use of the Codex international standard on glyphosate  
3.9.  At the July 2019 Committee meeting, the United States drew att ention to Members' restrictions 
or proposed restrictions on the us e of glyphosate. It noted that scientific and regulatory authorities 
worldwide had re -evaluated and reconfirmed the authorization status of glyphosate as a crop 
protection tool, including at  the May  2016 JMPR special session to re -evaluate glyphosate due to 
concerns resulting from the hazard report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer 
(IARC), and the availability of new toxicology and epidemiology studies. JMPR concluded that di etary 
exposure to glyphosate did not present a risk to consumers and reaffirmed existing Codex MRLs for 
glyphosate. In April 2019, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed 
interim registration review decision for glyphosate, conc luding that there were no risks to public 
health when glyphosate was used in accordance with its current label, and that glyphosate was not 
likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The United States urged Members to base their regulatory 
actions on glyphosate on sound science and risk -based principles.  
3.10.   Canada agreed with the United States on the importance of basing measures on international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations and specifically Codex standards. Establishing 
science -based pesticide MRLs hel ped ensure that pesticides were being used properly by growers 
and provided consumers with access to a safe food supply. Canada noted that JMPR had conducted 
a thorough toxicological evaluation and had found that glyphosate was unlikely to be genotoxic at 
anticipated dietary exposure, and was also unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from 
exposure through diet. Similar reviews had been undertaken by a number of Members, including 
Canada, making glyphosate one of the most rigorously evaluated pesti cides in the world. Canada's 
findings supported the continued registration and safe use of products containing glyphosate. 
Canada underlined the importance of Members taking timely regulatory decisions based on science 
and risk, taking into account the adv ice of the international standards setting bodies, in particular 
Codex.  
3.11.   Brazil, Paraguay, Senegal, the Russian Federation and Uruguay encouraged Members not to 
deviate from established Codex standards for glyphosate.  
3.12.   Paraguay also elaborated that Codex sta ndards enabled developing countries, without the 
resources to carry out their own risk analysis, to meet their international requirements in terms of 
safety. Uruguay urged Members to adhere to the available scientific evidence, in order to avoid 
creating u njustified barriers to international trade.  
3.13.   Australia informed Members that the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority 
(APVMA) had undertaken a review of recent evidence presented in formal legal actions around the 
world, and found no grou nds to take regulatory action in Australia. Australia's risk -based scientific 
approach to regulation ensured that each agricultural chemical was thoroughly and independently 
assessed taking into account extensive scientific information. The APVMA had consi dered the 
WHO IARC report, along with an examination of many other scientific trials and studies. Like other 
regulators, the APVMA had determined that glyphosate was safe to use when used in accordance 
with label directions. The APVMA advised Australian st akeholders that discussions in the media did 
not represent the facts or the science accurately.  
3.14.   Codex noted that Members were well informed of the JMPR evaluation outcomes in May 2016 
and the CCPR decision based on JMPR's scientific advice.  
3.15.   In November 201 9, the United States raised concern over actions by Members to restrict the 
use of glyphosate or withdraw glyphosate MRLs without clear scientific justification . 
The US statement has been circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1752 . G/SPS/GEN/1776  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.16.   Brazil noted that plant protection products were essentia l technological tools in agriculture for 
the maintenance of a sustainable level of production, contributing to food safety, food security and 
environmental sustainability, although there were concerns about the use of chemicals in food. 
Brazil  considered t hat some decisions lacked a scientific basis and were implemented with a 
hazard -based approach. Brazil emphasized the importance of harmonization and of basing 
phytosanitary policies and measures on Codex work. When Codex standards were not compatible 
with Members' levels of protection, they should define MRLs based on scientific evidence and 
appropriate risk assessment. Brazil underscored that no evidence justifying the non -authorization of 
glyphosate or lower MRLs than those suggested by Codex had been id entified. Therefore, Brazil was 
concerned about Thailand's decision to ban the use of glyphosate and the potential impact on 95% 
of Brazil's exports to Thailand. Brazil explained that this tool enabled sustainable agricultural 
production, such as no -tillage agriculture, prevented soil erosion, re duced water loss by evaporation, 
increased the level of organic matter in the soil, reduced the use of fossil fuels, reduced the cost of 
production, allowed better microbiological balance in soils, decreased greenho use gas emissions, 
and enabled better pest and disease control. There was no relationship between banning glyphosate 
and increasing sustainability or production safety.  
3.17.   Australia, Canada, Paraguay, and Uruguay reiterated their statements from the previous 
meeting. Paraguay also stressed that Codex standards enabled developing countries that lacked 
resources to carry out their own risk analysis to meet safety requirements. Uruguay supported the 
work of JMPR and Codex and their commitment to providing scienti fic evidence derived from 
adequate risk assessments.  
3.18.   Argentina underscored the importance of respecting the principles of the SPS Agreement that 
required basing measures on a risk analysis and scientific evidence. Argentina referred to the risk 
analysis un dertaken by Codex to ensure safe MRLs for glyphosate in different crops.  
3.19.   Canada expressed its concern that several Members were proposing or considering bans on 
glyphosate seemingly without a scientific basis, inconsistent with the established Codex MRLs. 
Canada noted that the work undertaken by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and 
JMPR provided scientifically sound guidance to support national regulatory measures.  
4  RESPONSES RECEIVED F ROM THE RELEVANT STA NDARD -SETTING ORGANIZATIONS  
4.1.  There have been no further responses received from the relevant standard -setting 
organizations  since the last annual report . 
__________