G/SPS/W/357  
 
17 April 2024 
(24-3208) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
  
SIXTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES  
ADAPTATION OF SPS MEASURES TO REGIONAL CONDITIONS  
PROPOSAL FROM INDIA  
The following proposal , received on  16 April 2024, is being circulated at the request of the delegation 
of India. 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  BACKGROUND  
1.1.  The Sixth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) provides an opportunity for Members to 
continue the work towards full and effective implementation of the SPS Agreement, including 
application of the concepts and obligations under the Agreement to ensure that SPS measures do 
not constitute means of arbitr ary and unjustified discrimination between Members as enshrined in 
the SPS Agreement. India expects that the Sixth Review compl ements and continues the discussions 
on enhancing safe trade through adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions in pursuan ce of 
paragraph 8 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Declaration for the 12th Ministerial Conference: 
Responding to Modern SPS Challenges (SPS Declaration).  
1.2.  The work of Thematic Group 3 under the Work Programme of the SPS Declaration has shown 
that there is  a consensus amongst WTO Members on the importance of regionalization in facilitating 
safe trade, the difficulties in establishing a disease -free or pest -free area and the non -recognition of 
the disease or pest status maintained by WOAH and IPPC.  
1.3.  These iss ues have regularly been discussed during the previous reviews of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement. India had presented its proposal to emphasize on resource 
constraints of developing country Members and least  developed country Members (LDCs) requiring 
the discussions at the SPS Committee on how to improve technical and administrative assistance 
with respect to establishing regionalization and harmonizing different concepts of regionalization and 
the importance of establishing and recogn izing areas of low pest or disease prevalence.  
1.4.  Another important issue which has regularly been highlighted by many Members is the 
non-recognition by importing Members of the disease or pest status in exporting Members as 
maintained by WOAH and IPPC and the non-recognition of regional conditions as mandated under 
Article  6 of the SPS Agreement.  
2  PROPOSAL S 
2.1.  In the draft report to the 13th Ministerial Conference, the SPS Committee has recognized that 
adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions, including recognition of pest - or disease -free 
areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence, based on WOAH and IPPC guidance and 
SPS Commi ttee guidelines in G/SPS/48 , are an important means by which to facilitate safe trade 
and can help avoid unnecessary trade restrictions. The SPS Committee also highlighted that capacity 
building can assist in bringing domestic regulatory frameworks in line with relevant international 
guidance.  G/SPS/W/357  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.1  Recognition and harmonization of regional conditions  
2.2.  WOAH and IPPC recognizes several forms of regional conditions, each with its own distinct 
meaning and purpose. Often the SPS regime in importing Members fail s to specify which from of 
regionalization their regulations recognize. Thus, this lack of clear understanding of the forms of 
regionalization creates hurdles for exporting Members to achieve recognition of their regional 
conditions by importing Members.  
2.3.  WOAH recognize s three forms of regionalization : disease -free countries, zones and 
compartments. Similarly, IPPC recognizes three forms of regionalization : pest-free area, pest -free 
place of production (PFPP) or pest -free production site (PFPS), and area of low pest prev alence. 
The prevalence of several forms of regionalization and the nature of WOAH and IPPC guidelines as 
recommendatory has permitted importing Members to selectively recognize different forms of 
regional conditions.  
2.4.  However, due to the lack of harmonizati on of regional conditions and their recognition by 
importing Members, there is an uncertainty on how an importing Member should treat some of the 
forms of regional conditions. For instance, there is no certainty on the manner in which an importing 
Member r ecognizes a WOAH -endorsed control programme of an exporting Member and thereby 
grants market access.  
2.1.1   Proposal  
2.5.  Against this background, India would encourage further exchanges on recognition and 
harmonization of regional conditions in order to ensure trust and confidence among Members on 
variations of regional conditions, thereby facilitating seamless trade.  
2.6.  Additionally, India proposes to establish a work programme which identifies the reasons for 
non-recognition of regional conditions, including disease or  pest status recognized by relevant 
international organizations and non -recognition of effective eradication programmes of exporting 
Members even though endorsed by relevant international organizations.  
2.7.  The work programme should provide a set of guidelines  and parameters to enable 
harmonization of regions like zones and compartments (which could be either free areas or areas of 
low prevalence) in line with the regions already established by Members through preparing an 
indicative list of factors such as geo graphy, ecosystem, surveillance, and effective control system. 
The guidelines must require importing Members to recognize compartments and zones of the 
exporting Members if it has been objectively demonstrated to importing Members that said zones 
and compa rtments are free areas or areas of low prevalence as has been established by the 
exporting Members.  
2.2  Establishment and Recognition of areas of low pest or disease prevalence  
2.8.  As has been observed, Members face difficulty in establishing disease -free or pest -free areas 
due to financial and regulatory limitations. A solution to this issue may be through the establishment 
of areas of low pest or disease prevalence (low prevalence areas) and recognition of such areas by 
importing Members.  
2.9.  The general guidelines o f the IPPC and WOAH provide considerable flexibility to Members to 
determine the form and structure of their SPS measures that are adapted to regional conditions. 
ISPM 22 of IPPC highlights the advantages of establishing an area of low pest prevalence – removal 
of post -harvest treatment, less restive control on movement into an area of low pest prevalence and 
permitting the presence of a pest in an area up to a specified population level.  
2.10.  While the flexibilities permitted for the establishment of an area of  low pest prevalence are 
welcomed, there may be concerns on the recognition of the concept by importing Members. While 
ISPM 22 provides a procedure with respect to the recognition of areas of low pest prevalence, it has 
been observed that many Members have  not permitted their domestic system to recognize efforts 
by exporting Members to establish an area of low pest prevalence. Moreover, many exporting 
Members face delays in recognition of their regional conditions.  G/SPS/W/357  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.2.1   Proposal  
2.11.  In this regard, India suggests th at the Sixth Review conducts workshops in improving the 
understanding of Members on areas of low pest or disease prevalence with emphasis on building 
trust among the importing Members on safety of products originating from such areas.  
2.3  Areas of low disease prevalence  
2.12.  Members have regularly highlighted issues around lack of infrastructure and resources, lack 
of verification capacity, inconsistent criteria, and lack of understanding of international guidelines to 
fully establish pest -free or disease -free areas  as per Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
2.13.  As mentioned earlier, ISPM 22 provides requirements for establishing areas of low pest 
prevalence. However, even though Article 6 of SPS Agreement explicitly recognizes the concept of 
areas with low disease prevalenc e, WOAH guidelines do not explicitly provide a procedure for 
establishing and recognizing areas of low disease prevalence.  
2.14.  Trade in animals and animal products forms a major part of global trade under the 
SPS Agreement. It is important for not only sustena nce but also survival of small stakeholders, 
including family -run businesses, in developing country Members and LDCs that areas of low disease 
prevalence are recognized by importing Members in order to facilitate trade in animals and animal 
products.  
2.3.1   Propo sal 
2.15.  In light of the above, India proposes that a work programme is established to discuss the 
elements and science -based analyses for establishing areas of low disease prevalence and for 
importing Members to recognize such areas so that trade can be facili tated from such areas.  
2.16.  The work programme must create a common understanding on and recommend the factors 
which should be considered and procedures which should be followed by the Members while 
establishing and recognizing areas of low disease prevalence, in consultation with WOAH, on the 
same lines as ISPM 22 of IPPC . 
__________