G/SPS/64  
 
3 August  2020 
(20-5369) Page: 1/23 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
REVIEW OF T HE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
REPORT ADOPTED BY  THE COMMITTEE  ON 26 JUNE  2020 – PART A  
INTRODUCTION  
Article 12.7 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
("the Agreement") provides that "the 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 of the Agreement was completed in March 1999.1 
At the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Ministers instructed the Committee to review 
the operation and implementation of the Agreement at least once every four years.2 The Second 
Review of the Agreement was completed in July 2005,3 the Third Review in May 2010,4 and t he 
Fourth  Review in July 2017 .5 At its March 2018 meeting, the Committee adopted a procedure and 
timetable to undertake the Fifth Review of the Agreement.6 A draft Background Document prepared 
by the Secretariat was circulated in May 2018;7 this Background Document was the basis for the 
preparation of the factual part of this Report.  
In accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee , the draft Report of the Fifth Review 
was first circulated for discussion at the 18 -19 July 2019 meeting of the SPS Committee .8 
A subsequent r evision was then prepared for discussion at the November 2019 meeting of the 
SPS Committee.9 Following which, t he Secretariat prepared another revision ,10 taking into account 
inputs received from Members ,11 for discussion at the March 2020 SPS Committee meeting . 
However, this meeting was subsequently cancelled .12 On the basis of Members' submitted inputs in 
April 2020,13 revised draft recommendations were prepared .14 Members were invited to discuss these 
recommendations and the revised Report15 in the informal virtual  SPS Committee  consultations 
 
1 G/SPS/12 . 
2 WT/MIN(01)/17 . 
3 G/SPS/36 . 
4 G/SPS/53 . 
5 G/SPS/62 . In accordance with the procedures for the Fourth Review, the Committee considered the 
revised Report of the Review for adoption f or the first time at its October 2014 meeting. After submission of 
Members' comments and suggestions, as well as further discussions in several Committee meetings, the Report 
was subsequently adopted in July 2017.  The Report of the Fourth Review largely reflects the work of the 
Committee until October 2014, except where stated otherwise.  
6 G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1 . 
7 G/SPS/GEN/1612 . 
8 G/SPS/W/313 and G/SPS/W/313/Corr.1 . This version of the Report did not contain any draft 
recommendations.  
9 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 . This  subsequent revision contained draft recommendations, based on Members' 
proposal, written inputs ( G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3 ), and discussions in the SPS Committee meetings 
(JOB/SPS/2/Rev.4  and JOB/SPS/2/Rev.4/Corr.1 ) and consultations.  
10 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  and G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 . 
11 A compilation of Members' draft recommendations and comments is available in G/SPS/W/318/Rev.3 . 
In addition, some Members proposed specific changes to the structure and content of  the draft Report. These 
comments are compiled in G/SPS/W/315/Rev.1 . 
12 JOB/SPS/5/Rev. 1/Corr.1 . 
13 A revised compilation of Members' comments is available in G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1 , as well as individual 
Members' comments in G/SPS/W/323 , G/SPS/W/326  and G/SPS/W/327 . 
14 G/SPS/W/325 . 
15 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  and G/SPS/W/313/ Rev.2/Add.1 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 2 - 
 
  which were held on 25 May . The Secretariat prepared a  subsequent  revision of the Report16 for 
discussion in the June 2020 SPS Committee meeting, taking into consideration the comments from 
Members in the  May 2020  virtual consultations, and Members' comments submitted by the deadline 
of 2 June 2020.17  
At its Ju ne 2020 regular meeting, the Committee adopted , on an ad referendum  basis,  the Report 
of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agr eement.  No objections to 
the adoption of the Report, as agreed at the June 2020 meeting, were received by the deadline of 
31 July 2020.  
The Report of the Fifth Review is comprised of two sections: (i) Part A : Proposals submitted under 
the Fifth Review – which contains the list of the proposals submitted under the Fifth Review, as well 
as information on the discussion s and thematic sessions that have taken place on the various topics. 
In addition, this section contains information on the  areas identified for further work by the SPS 
Committee, including any recommendations; and (ii) Part B : Factual report .18 
 
16 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3  and G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1 . 
17 A revised compilation of Members' comments is available in G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1 . 
18 Part B is contained in an addendum to the Report of the Review , G/SPS/64/Add.1 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Table of contents  
Page 
PART A – PROPOSALS SUBMITTED UNDER THE FIFTH REVIEW  ................................ ........  4 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  4 
2   APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION, RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCIENCE  ..................  4 
3   CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (ANNEX C)  .............................  6 
4   EQUIVALENCE  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  8 
5   FALL ARMYWORM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
6   NATIONAL SPS  COORDINATION MECHANISMS  ................................ .........................  12 
7   NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND TRANSPARENCY  ................................ ..................  13 
8   MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS (MRLS) FOR PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS  ................  15 
9   REGIONALIZATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16 
10   ROLE OF CODEX, OIE AND IPPC WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ... 19 
11   VOLUNTARY THIRD -PARTY ASSURANCE SCHEMES  ................................ ..................  20 
PART B - FACTUAL REPORT  (Part B is  contained in an addendum to  this Report)19 
ANNEX I: LIST OF TOPICS AND PROPOSALS  ................................ ................................ .. 22 
 
19 G/SPS/64/Add.1 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 4 - 
 
  PART A  – PROPOSALS SUBMITTED UNDER THE FIFTH REVIEW  
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  In the Fifth Review, the Committee has considered proposals and suggestions submitted by 
Members on the following topics:  
▪ Appropriate level of protection, risk assessment and science;  
▪ Control, inspection and approval procedures  (Annex C) ; 
▪ Equivalence;  
▪ Fall armyworm;  
▪ National SPS coordination mechanisms;  
▪ Notification procedures and transparency;  
▪ MRLs for plant protection products ;  
▪ Regionalization ; 
▪ Role of Codex, OIE and IPPC with respect to  specific trade concerns ; and 
▪ Voluntary third-party assurance schemes.  
1.2.  Part A of this document contains information on the discussions that have taken place in the 
SPS Committee and thematic sessions on the various topics identified above.20 Annex I provides a 
list of the topics and proposals submitted under the Fifth Review.21 
2  APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION, RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCIENCE  
2.1.  Brazil indicated  interest in discussing the appropriate level of protection  (ALOP),  risk 
assessment , and the scientific basis of SPS measures required by the SPS Agreement  in its 
preliminary submission .22 While recognizing  that the SPS Agreement provide s a solid base for the 
treatment of regulatory issues in the area of  trade in agricultural products, Brazil was of the view  
that it was necessary to reinforce its features to ensure the attainment of its objectives.  
2.2.  In relation to scientific justification (Article 2.2) and risk assessment, Brazil  indicated that the 
Committ ee should reaffirm the scientific basis of SPS measures required by the SPS Agreement, 
thereby limiting the use of SPS measures in a manner that would constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable 
discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade. With respect to  risk assessment and determination 
of the appropriate level of SPS protection (Article 5), Brazil  indicated that Members could discuss 
guidelines to ensure that the factors to be taken into account in risk assessment, as provided for in 
Articles 5.2 and 5. 3, were appraised in ways supported by scientific evidence and methods. Members 
could also discuss ways to avoid the misuse of Article 5.7.  
2.3.  Some Members indicated interest in a further elaboration of Brazil's proposal , while also 
flagging concerns . The Uni ted States expressed interest in the topic of risk analysis , including risk 
communication, noting that the Background Document for the Fifth Review23 contained valuable 
information on relevant Committee discussions.  
2.4.  Subsequently  Brazil introduced a more detailed  proposal24 on risk assessment and appropriate 
level of protection.  Brazil suggested that Members be urged to recognize that risk assessment, as 
regulated under Article 5.1, was the main criteria and means by which scientif ic justification was 
attained for the adoption and implementation of SPS measures. It also suggested that Members 
specify in relevant notifications that the notified measures were taken under Article 5.7, stating their 
 
20 The Chairperson's re port of the informal meetings on the Fifth Review is contained in 
JOB/SPS/2/Rev.4  and JOB/SPS/2/Rev.4/Corr .1. 
21 A summary of all submitted proposals and papers is available in G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev.6 . In addition, 
comments that have been submitted on these proposals and papers are available in G/SPS/GEN/1655  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1661 . 
22 G/SPS/W/301 . 
23 G/SPS/GEN/1612 . 
24 G/SPS/W/308 , which replaced the relevant secti ons in G/SPS/W/301 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 5 - 
 
  views on the insufficiency of scienti fic evidence in relation to the issue that gave origin to the 
measure, and that the notifying Member had sought and would continuously seek additional 
information in order to review the measure within a reasonable period of time. The Committee should 
also ask Codex Alimentarius, as well as other relevant international organizations, to work on the 
procedural steps necessary for the adoption and application of provisional measures, given the 
impossibility of establishing a proper risk assessment. Brazil reco gnized that this was a sensitive 
issue and indicated openness to dialogue.  
2.5.  In Committee discussions,  Brazil referred to the practical differences in the definition of risk 
assessment in the SPS Agreement, and that of the  international standard -setting bodies (ISSBs , i.e. 
Codex, OIE and IPPC, also referred to as the "Three Sisters" ), as well as in the principle of provisional 
measures embodied in Article 5.7.   
2.6.  One Member emphasized the importance of Article 5.1 in implementing the scientific 
justification pr inciple of the SPS Agreement, and further indicated that it did not  agree with the 
suggestions regarding notifications contained in paragraph 2.1(b)  of Brazil's proposal , which in its 
view went beyond the obligations of the Agreement and created an additio nal burden .  
2.7.  Other  Members noted  the importance of the scientific justification principle and the challenging 
nature of discussing this topic, while indicating their willingness to have further discussions on certain 
elements of the proposal.  
2.8.  Brazil recognized that the recommendations in its proposal had not achieved consensus, and 
called on Member s to engage in discussions on the principles, as well as to provide additional inputs.  
2.9.  One Member highlighted that the SPS Agreement allowed for some ambiguities in the 
application of Articles 5.1 and 5.7, since Members at the time of adoption of measures did not need 
to specify which provision they were invoking. Another  Member highlighted the need to include the 
concept of consistency in the discussion, and in particular the Guidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article 5.5  (G/SPS/15 ), which provided several examples of how to achieve 
consistency in ALOPs.  
2.10.   One Member also suggested  inviting the ISSBs to provide information on their standards, 
guidelines and recommendations developed in relation to insufficient evidence. IPP C indicated its 
appreciation for the Committee's work on scientific evidence in emergency situations and 
underscored that risk assessment was a basic tool for standard -setting and implementation.  
2.11.   Brazil reiterated that its proposal was aligned with the SPS  Agreement . Its purpose was not 
to place additional burdens on Members, but to provide a unified understand ing of the 
SPS Agreement , highlighting  that transparency should be key when implementing measures based 
on Article  5.7. 
2.12.   In discussing the draft recom mendations  contained in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 , one Member 
proposed rewording the draft recommendation to include the suggestion  that the June 2020 
Committee workshop focus on risk. Several Members supported this suggestion, with one Member 
further suggesting that the 2020 workshop  could  also address the issues raised in Brazil's proposal 
(G/SPS/W/308 ), whil e recalling its previous written comments on the proposal .25  
2.13.   Brazil also drew attention to the recommendations contained in its proposal, indicating that it 
would reflect on possible new languag e to address the issues covered in its recommendations. 
One Member indicated interest in further discussing the issues addressed in Brazil's proposal, but 
could not endorse the recommendations as currently drafted. Another Member proposed working 
with Braz il to capture Brazil's concerns in the wording of the recommendations.  
2.14.   Canada subsequently submitted a written suggestion that the Committee should hold a 
workshop in June 2020 on risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. 
The Committee agree d to hold this workshop in June 2020. Due to the COVID -19 pandemic , the 
workshop was postponed  until further notice . 
 
25 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.15.   Recommendations : 
▪ 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 emerge s 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 th e 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 of 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 Wo rkshop as soon as the COVID -19 
situation allows.  
3  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (ANNEX C)  
3.1.  The SPS Committee held a Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures 
(Annex  C) in July 2018.26 The main objective of the workshop was to bring together officials 
responsible for the implementation of the SPS Agreement, as well as the relevant international 
standard -setting bodies and other international organizations, for discussion and experience -sharing 
on developments, challenges and practices in implementing Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Through presentations, practical case stories and discussions, the workshop aimed 
to expand Members' understanding of the relevant WTO Agreements and provisions; highlight the 
economic rationale for strengthening the implementation of Annex C to reduce trade transaction 
costs; and explain how the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement  (TFA)  linked to and complemented 
the SPS Agreement.  
3.2.  The United States e xpressed interest in continuing to work on this topic.  Canada  proposed to  
hold a thematic session on approval procedures in November 2019 , to provide Members with an 
opportunity to discuss issues concerning the implementation of Article 8 and Annex C .27 Canada 
proposed that such a thematic session could also address areas such as undue delays and 
transparency procedures.  
3.3.  Members welcomed Canada's proposal , and several noted challenges faced in  the trade of 
agricultural products due to approval procedures wh ich did not follow the principles of the 
SPS Agreement. The Committee agreed to hold a thematic session on approval procedures in 
November 2019. Members were asked to submit inputs on the programme and speakers, following 
which the Secretariat would prepar e a first draft of the programme for circulation and discussion in 
the July 2019 Committee meeting.  The Committee subsequently discussed a draft version of the 
programme , submitted by Canada.28   
3.4.  Members indicated interest in the thematic session, with some expressing support for its format 
which would allow experience -sharing from an importing and exporting Members' perspective, as 
 
26 A summary report of th is workshop is available in document G/SPS/R/91 . The programme is also 
available in document G/SPS/GEN/1613/Rev.2 . Presentations from the session are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop910718_e.htm . 
27 G/SPS/W/310 . 
28 G/SPS/GEN/1704 .  G/SPS/64  
 
- 7 - 
 
  well as ISSBs. In addition, s ome Members suggested ha ving a separa te section in the thematic 
session to deal specifically with undue delays .  
3.5.  One Member  further proposed that the Committee could consider developing guidelines for 
approval procedures , as this was one of the few provisions of the SPS Agreement which lacked  
guidance .  
3.6.  The OIE indicated its willingness to participate in the thematic session, but requested Canada 
to provide clarification on the link between OIE work and approval procedures, noting that pre -
approval procedures were clear in the context of Codex  work, but not so for the OIE. Canada 
indicated that it would first consult internally and then follow -up bilaterally with OIE to provide the 
requested clarification.  
3.7.  Further to the discussions, t he Committee held a T hematic Session  on Approval Procedures on 
5 November 2019 .29 Building upon the July 2018 Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval 
Procedures, the purpose of the thematic session was to explore concepts within Article 8 and Annex 
C of the SPS Agreement, as they relate to approval procedures,  including undue delays, transparency 
and information requirements. The session focused on a broad array of themes, including pre -market 
approvals, approval of biotech products, domestic regulations and work of international standard -
setting bodies. Variou s perspectives from Members, international standard -setting bodies and the 
private  sector were presented and possible opportunities for cooperation among these players were 
explored. One Member indicated appreciation for the webcasting of the thematic sess ion. 
3.8.  In discussing the draft recommendations contained in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 , some Members 
indicated that they were reflecting on possible further recommendations based on the discussions 
at the thematic session.  
3.9.  Canada subsequently submitted a proposal for the Committee to continue its work on approval 
procedures through the establishment of an electronic working group open to the participation of all 
Members and Observers.30 The submission indicates that the electronic working group would 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures, including pre -market product approvals, and 
further consider the Committee's role. In particular, the electronic working group would: (1 ) explore 
the key challenges of approval procedures that impact international trade and consider challenges 
that the Committee should seek to address; (2) examine the principles of approval procedures that 
facilitate international trade while meeting the i mporting Member's appropriate level of sanitary or 
phytosanitary protection and consider the Committee's role in highlighting these principles; 
(3) consider the available tools and best practices to enhance the implementation of the obligations 
of the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval procedures; and (4) give consideration to possible 
future work of the Committee on approval procedures.  
3.10.   The submission further indicates that the electronic working group would report on its work 
during the SPS Committee  meetings to keep the Committee informed of its deliberations. While 
working primarily electronically, the working group may meet, as appropriate, as a physical working 
group on the margins of the SPS Committee meetings, such as at the informal SPS Committ ee 
meeting. The submission proposes that the electronic working group on approval procedures should 
commence its work following the March 2020 SPS Committee meeting.  
3.11.   Canada sub sequently sub mitted a nother  proposal to initiate the way forward for the work of  
the working group on approval procedures, by way of a proposed process  which outlines: the title 
of the working group; its  functions and reporting  approach  to the Committee; participation and 
stewards; description of work; language of the working group; a nd proposed timelines and next 
steps.31  
  
 
29 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1704/Rev.1 . Presentations from the session are 
available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/ workshop05112019 _e.htm . 
30 G/SPS/W/321 . 
31 G/SPS/W/328 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.12.   Recommendations : 
▪ 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 a genda 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 Sessio n on Approval Procedures, the Committee sh ould 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.  
4  EQUIVALENCE  
4.1.  Australia  proposed that the Committee  expand on its ex isting guidance on recognition of 
equivalence in relation to systems approaches for achieving the importing Members' appropriate 
level of protection .32 In particular, the proposal suggest ed that the Committee explore the 
impediments to the application of t he concept and practices of equivalence to manage SPS risks in 
trade. The Committee could build on its Decision on the Implementation of Article  4 of the Agreement 
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures33, specifically in relation to the  
determination of equivalence of a systems approach , and draw on existing and ongoing work of the 
ISSBs.  
4.2.  Brazil propose d that Members recognize the importance of the Committee Decision on 
Equivalence, commit to follow its provisions , and reinforce their commitment to enter into 
consultations when requested, following Article 4.2 and the procedures described in the Decision 
itself.34 Canada proposed  holding a workshop or a thematic session on equivalence ,35 and suggested  
including  topics such as systems approaches.36 Several Members supported Canada's proposal to 
hold a thematic session or workshop on equivalence and further suggested that such an event could 
also address the topics raised by Australia and Brazil, as well as help to identify priorities and needs.  
Many Members were in favour  of sharing best practices and experiences in implementing Article 4 
before developing additional guidance.  
4.3.  The Committee decided  to hold a two -part thematic session on equivalence , including  a first 
part to introduce the concept of equivalence and the international guidance available from the WTO 
and ISSBs; and a second part to share the exp eriences of Members with the recognition of 
equivalence.  
4.4.  The first part of the thematic session  on equivalence  was held  in October 2018 ,37 where the 
Secretariat provided an overview of the provisions of the SPS Agreement on equivalence (Article 4) 
and the relevant guidelines, as well as relevant dispute settlement reports . The thematic session 
also included a presentation from the Secretaria t on equivalence from a TBT perspective. The 
 
32 G/SPS/W/299 . 
33 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . 
34 G/SPS/W/301 . 
35 G/SPS/W/302 . 
36 G/SPS/W/302/Rev.1 . 
37 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1640/Rev.1 . Presen tations from the session are 
available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop301018_e.htm . G/SPS/64  
 
- 9 - 
 
  ensuing discussions covered SPS topics related to the time -frame for expedited responses, the use 
of Committee guidelines in disputes, responding to equivalence requests, criteria for determining 
the appropriate  level of protection, and the lack of equivalence notifications, among others. 
In addition, the discussions focused on the differences in the coverage of equivalence in the SPS and 
TBT Agreements, and the lessons to be learned from discussions in the SPS a nd TBT Committees.  
4.5.  Representatives of Codex, IPPC and OIE explained their views of how the concept of 
equivalence was applied in their organizations' respective areas and  identified what the 
representatives considered to be the relevant international stand ards and guidelines. In  addition, 
the OIE provided information on the level of implementation of equivalence and equivalence 
arrangements by its members, including the challenges faced in making an equivalence 
determination, as reported in a recent survey.  The discussions covered the ISSB representatives' 
views on: the need to ensure the consistency of the work being undertaken by the ISSBs  with the 
WTO Agreements; the challenges of having a common definition of equivalence; the lack of 
consistency in wordi ng across organizations; the situations in which a systems approach should be 
used; and the link between recognition of disease -free areas and equivalence determinations. 
The Secretariat provided background information on the genesis of the equivalence Decision and 
underscored the collaboration between the SPS Committee and the ISSBs  at the time.  
4.6.  Building on Part 1 of the Thematic Session on Equivalence , the proponents noted several areas 
for further discussion . These included the notification  of equivalence  and use of the formal 
equivalence agenda item ; exploring certain  concepts in more detail ; improving the predictability of 
equivalence ; and discussing the Committee Decision . One Member observed that the first part of 
the thematic session ha d served to untangle some of the issues identified in its  written  comments .38 
4.7.  The second part of the Thematic Session was held  in March 2019.39 Members shared their 
experience in applying equivalence at different levels to individual measures, groups of me asures, 
or entire control systems for particular commodities.  In addition, other approaches to equivalence 
were presented from an academic and regional perspective. In the discussions, Members agreed 
that equivalence was an important trade -facilitating too l. 
4.8.  Some speakers highlighted that the principle of equivalence implie d reaching a similar or 
comparable end -result, without requiring sameness of methods or procedures. In this context, the 
role of the 'appropriate level of protection' was highlighted seve ral times as the relevant benchmark 
or comparator against which the health outcome of alternative processes or methods should be 
assessed.  The proponents indicated their  intention  to reflect on the discussions at the thematic 
sessions  and consider possible next steps.  
4.9.  Australia further acknowledged the wealth of information shared in the thematic sessions, 
which had also highlighted differences in the experiences. Australia noted that there might still be a 
need to review the existing guidance, especially in relation to systems approaches, but also 
recognized that Members did not have an appetite to do so.  
4.10.   Australia also drew attention to the references to equivalence notifications in the 2019 
Workshop on Transparency and Coordination,40 and suggested a recommendation to encourage 
Members to notify equivalence agreements. Australia  further  highlighted the usefulness of keeping 
up to date with ongoing Codex work on equivalence.  
4.11.   Brazil reaffirmed the importance of the Committee's work on equivalence and indicated its 
concerns with the slow progress made in the harmonization of approaches , while further noting  that 
Members' effective implementation of the guidelines could be enhanced. Brazil underscored 
Members' obligations under Article 4. 2 related to holding consultations on equivalence agreements, 
when requested. Another Member highlighted  the low level of implementation of the equivalence 
principle and lack of related information, and indicated interest in Australia's paper on the system s 
approach, while noting Codex guidelines in the food safety area.
 
38 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
39 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1675/Rev.1 . Presentations from the session are 
available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop18032019_e.htm . 
40 A summary report of this workshop is available in G/SPS/R/96 . The programme is available in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1694/Rev.2 . Presentations from the session are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop15072019_e.ht m. G/SPS/64  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Recommendations : 
▪ 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 the ir government's 
Codex, OIE, 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.  
5  FALL ARMYWORM  
5.1.  Brazil, Kenya,  Madagascar,  Paraguay , the United States  and Uruguay proposed using  fall 
armyworm as a case study to discuss the application of the principles in the SPS Agreement to 
enable greater access to tools and technologies  in integrated pest management strategies .41 
The proposal recommend ed forming a working group to undertake several activities.  
5.2.  Several Members  supported the proposal , including  the formation of a working group to share 
experiences and help to identify the ways in which application of the principle s of the SPS Agreement 
could support greater access and to collect information on collaborations among Members that could 
also support improved access to tools and technologies. One Member indicated that it was still 
studying the proposal and that it reser ved its position. Another Member raised q uestions about the 
link to intellectual property issues made in the proposal, and the link to the TRIP S Agreement , also 
noting that  biotechnology was a sensitive subject, and that the development of prescriptive 
guidelines in this area could interfere with Members' policy space.  Kenya intervened to say  that 
these concerns would be taken into account by the proponents.  
5.3.  The Committee decided  to hold a thematic session on fall armyworm in March 2019 , and Brazil, 
Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay circulate d a proposed agenda for this  
session.42 The Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm  was held  on 19 March 201943, to discuss the role 
of the WTO SPS Agreement in enabling access to tools and technologies and facilitating international 
trade, using fall armyworm as a case study. The session provide d information on the nature and the 
impact of the spread of fall armyworm across the globe, the challenges for smallholders, and the 
tools and technologies available. The session also relayed information on the critical need to improve 
host plant resistance. Global, regional and domestic approaches to enable regulatory frameworks to 
facilitate access to safe and effective tools and technologi es were presented. Members shared their 
experiences in dealing with fall armyworm, highlighting their successes and challenges.44 
5.4.  Paraguay and Uruguay subsequently noted that research had allowed the  development of 
technology kits, which could be effective  in other regions such as Africa. They suggested that the 
Committee should f ocus on how to move forward to assist countries in need of these technology 
kits, and how the Committee could effectively support this approach, in light of the principles of the 
SPS Agreement  in formulating and implementing SPS measures . They also underscored  the 
importance of collaborating on regulatory approaches.  
5.5.  The first open -ended working group meeting on fall armyworm was held  in March 2019, where 
Members were invited to share their views on potential next steps.  Members reflected on the 
experiences shared in the thematic session. The co -sponsors indicated their intention to have an 
 
41 G/SPS/W/305 . 
42 G/SPS/W/309  and G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1 . 
43 The programme for this themati c session is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1676/Rev.1 . Presentations from 
the session are also available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop19032019_e.htm . 
44 See the summary report of the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting for an overview of the thematic 
session ( G/SPS/R/94 ). G/SPS/64  
 
- 11 - 
 
  open and collaborative process in exchanging ideas so that  the Fifth Review Report would  fully reflect 
the views of the Committee . 
5.6.  Issues discussed at this meeting included t he development and implementation of guidelines  
in order to respond to the needs of farmers impact ed by the pest ; the role of the ISSBs in developing 
a collaborative action plan, and the possible opportunity to contribute to  IPPC's International Year 
of Plant Health 2020; the role of the SPS Committee; and facilitation of  technology transfer among 
Members.  One of the proponents clarified that the suggested role of the working  group was to 
compile rather than develop guidelines, and to reflect the experiences of Members that could be 
beneficial to others in their national and regional work in facilitating access to tools.  
5.7.  Subsequently, Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay and the United Sta tes submitted a new proposal45 
providing an initial compilation of concepts that support collaboration at the regional and 
international level and that can be employed, on a voluntary basis, to improve and streamline 
regulatory processes, while safeguardin g human, plant and animal health. The concepts outlined in 
the submission are: (i) data portability; (ii) common application dossiers; (iii) 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. The submission proposes that these concepts could productively be a subject of 
further Committee discussion in connection with fall armyworm and could be assembled into a 
Committee document, connected to the Fifth Review, on approaches to streamline regulatory 
processes with respect to fall armyworm.  
5.8.  Brazil further underscored the importance of the concept of regional adaptation, while  noting 
that there were diverse approaches to dealing with fall armyworm  and that biological methodologies 
were necessary tools to consider. Kenya recognized that fall armyworm could compromise food 
security and emphasized the importance of having access t o available information and technology 
in order to address the issue. Paraguay noted the importance of regional and international efforts to 
improve inspection and testing of products, as well as increased access to tools.  
5.9.  Several  Members indicated that th ey needed time to assess the proposal . One Member 
recognized that the outlined concepts tended to be consistent with regulatory systems that support 
innovation. Another Member indicated that the proposal outlined some interesting concepts and 
courses of ac tion which could assist in the monitoring of pests. One Member also indicated interest 
in exploring the compilation of concepts and its potential extrapolation to address regulatory 
challenges in agricultural practices. Another Member  reserved its right to  provide comments.  
5.10.   One Member  provided additional information in relation to data portability, noting that the 
OECD had established principles which could provide a common basis for cooperation among the 
competent authorities of Members. In addition, Membe rs were encouraged to share their approaches 
in implementing emergency use authorizations.  
5.11.   One Member and an observer organization underscored the impact  of the pest in African 
countries, and highlighted the support received from FAO through specific proje cts, while calling for 
strong approaches, sustainable mechanisms, new technologies, as well as strengthened regional and 
national surveillance systems to address the problem. Members  were also informed of a  report by 
the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture ( IITA) scientists which had identified a new type of 
armyworm in West Africa.  
5.12.   One Member requested clarification on the relationship of the proposal to potential 
recommendations for the Fifth Review.  The United States clarified that it  continued to be open to 
ideas from Members and indicated that its initial thoughts on moving forward included the 
extrapolation of the initial compilation of concepts into an illustrative, voluntary list.  
5.13.   The IPPC had a positive view of the SPS Committee' s focus on fall armyworm and further 
noted the important role that the Committee could play in bringing attention to this pest. IPPC 
provided background information in relation to the origin and spread of the disease, and also 
 
45 G/SPS/W/317 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 12 - 
 
  emphasized the importance of information -sharing, innovative work (new technology), and 
cooperation (at the global, regional and national level) in addressing the issue.  
5.14.   In discussing the draft recommendations contained in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 , the United States, 
supported by Brazil, highlighted the usefulnes s of the proposed indicative, voluntary, non -exhaustive 
list of concepts in conformity with the SPS Agreement. The United States provided some initial 
responses to the questions submitted by  a Member on particular aspects of the draft 
recommendations , with respect to  the voluntary or prescriptive nature of the concepts; the 
exhaustive or indicative/inclusive nature of the concepts; and the legal basis for the concepts under 
the SPS Agreement.46 The United States  announced that the responses would be circula ted in writing  
and in response, the Member indicated that it looked forward to the written clarifications , noting that 
it might have follow -up questions after reviewing the written clarifications. Another Member shared 
the same concerns and questioned the link between the proposed concepts and the Agreement's 
legal obligations , and also noted that w hile the initial proposal had addressed fall armyworm, the 
focus of the latest proposal had shifted. The Member highlighted  the limited references to 
internation al standards in the proposal and reserved its position with respect to the suggested 
recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 . 
5.15.   Some Members supported the initiative and indicated interest in using fall armyworm as a 
case study for the role of the principles of the SPS Agreement in enabling access to tools and 
technologies. One Member highlighted the value of sharing solutions to these challenges among 
Members, while another emphasized the need to continue reflecting on the regulatory aspects of 
certain technologies to ad dress fall armyworm, including solutions such as integrated pest 
management.  
5.16.   Recommendations : 
▪ 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 safeguarding human, animal and plant life or health and account ing for the 
specific needs of smallholder farms.  
▪ As appropriate, Members are encouraged to request technical assistance to support efforts 
to improve their integrated pe st management strategies and, 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 address SPS 
challenges, in the SPS Committee  and, where appropriate, in the working group on 
approval procedures referred to in paragraph 3.9 above.  
6  NATIONAL SPS COORDINATION MECHANISMS  
6.1.  Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, the 
United States and Zambia presented  a joint  proposal on strengthening national SPS committee s, 
suggesting the organization of a thematic session or workshop in late 20 18 or early 2019.47 Several 
Members supported the proposal, highlighting the importance of sharing experiences with national 
SPS committees. Some Members  emphasized that national committees were not the only way to 
coordin ate and suggested enlarging the sc ope to include other national coordination mechanisms in 
the event . While the Trade Facilitation Agreement contained an obligation to establish a national 
committee, the SPS Agreement did not.  What mattered was the existence of  a functioning national 
coord ination mechanism.  The Secretariat reminded Members that the SPS Committee had held a 
Workshop on Coordination at National and Regional Levels in 2011, and invited Members to consult 
the materials available on the WTO website.48 
 
46 Paragraph 4.3 of G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1 . 
47 G/SPS/W/297 . 
48 Information on this workshop is available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/sps_17oct11_e.htm .  G/SPS/64  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6.2.  The Committee agreed with t he Chairperson's suggestion to address national SPS coordination 
mechanisms in a Workshop on Transparency and Coordination to be held in July 2019.  
The Secretariat prepared  a draft programme,49 inviting  Members to submit comments . 
6.3.  The Workshop on Transparency and Coordination was held in July 2019,50 to exchange 
experiences with transparency -related coordination, and with broader domestic coordination 
mechanisms. In particular, a n area of focus was the difference in scope between the SPS and 
TBT Agreements, and notification of measures containing both SPS and TBT elements . 
6.4.  Several Members indicated that the workshop had provided an opportunity for the sharing of 
experiences and further encouraged Members to reflect on the ideas from the workshop wit h a view 
to generate recommendations.  
6.5.  One Member also underscored the usefulness of ePing as a communication platform and 
requested the Secretariat to organize training for Members. An observer organization also underlined 
the need for training on the sub mission of notifications and use of the different online platforms, and 
further urged the Secretariat to examine areas where Members could benefit from training activities.  
6.6.  In discussing the draft recommendations contained in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 , the United States 
noted the depth  of the discussions at the July 2019 Workshop and supported the suggestions to 
request the Secretariat to prepare a collection of good practice documents with inputs from 
Members, with a focus on the list of topics included in document G/SPS/W/297 . Some Members 
supported the idea of a docu ment on good practices and the overall proposed recommendations, 
while reiterating the importance of strengthening national coordination mechanisms.  
6.7.  Recommendations : 
▪ 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 mechanisms 
and discuss strategies and approaches to improve SPS coordination and engagement at 
the national level with the aim o f 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 mechani sms, starting with 
those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination , and including 
additional resources as suggested by Members.  
7  NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND TRANSPARENCY  
7.1.  Brazil proposed  that Members  exchange  views on the notification of measures not clearly fitting 
only within the scope of the SPS or TBT Agreements, in order to improve transparency and avoid 
delays in the evaluation of notifications, for example at a workshop or thematic session.51 Members 
supported  the proposal to hol d a workshop or thematic session . Brazil clarified that the proposal was 
mainly to facilitate a broader discussion on notification s under the SPS or the TBT Agreement and 
did not expressly include the development of guidelines. One Member suggested that th e Secretariat 
could provide information on notification statistics at such an event.  
7.2.  The Committee decided to hold  a Workshop on Transparency and Coordination in July 2019. 
Brazil noted that both the SPS and TBT Committees would address its proposal  as part of their 
 
49 G/SPS/GEN/1694  (and subsequent revisions) . 
50 A summary report of this workshop is available in G/SPS/R/96 . The programme is available in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1694/Rev.2 . Presentations from the session are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop15 072019_e.htm . 
51 G/SPS/W/300 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 14 - 
 
  transparency workshops scheduled for summer 2019. Brazil invited Members to collaboratively work 
in developing the agenda for these sessions.  
7.3.  The United States agreed with the  importance of ensuring appropriate notifications and 
welcomed the work under the Fifth Review on this topic, including work to promote a shared 
understanding among Members on the need to notify measures to the appropriate Committee 
consistent with the def initions contained in the SPS Agreement.52 
7.4.  The Secretariat circulated a  draft programme  for the workshop ,53 developed in coordination 
with Brazil and TBT colleagues. The draft programme took into account Brazil 's proposal s in the SPS 
and TBT Committee s.54 Members were requested to submit comments and suggest speakers , and 
Brazil submitted further suggestions.55 
7.5.  One Member reiterated the need to notify relevant measures under both the SPS and TBT 
Agreements and highlighted the importance of further discussi ons on these types of measures that 
fall within the scope of both Agreements. There was a suggestion to up grade the SPS and TBT 
information management systems (IMS), as well as ePing , to become an integrated platform to allow 
Members to submit notifications under both Agreements, as well as to track these notifications in 
order to ensure the accuracy of research results. Brazil indicated interest in the idea of an automatic 
procedure for submitting notifications under both Agreements, noting that the feasibility of 
implementing this feature would have to be checked.  
7.6.  The Workshop on Transparency and Coordination was held in July 2019,56 to exchange 
experiences with transparency -related coordination, and with broader domestic coordination 
mechanisms. In particular, an area of focus was the difference in scope between the SPS and TBT 
Agreements, and notification of measures containing both SPS and TBT elements.  
7.7.  Several Members indicated th at the workshop had provided an opportunity for the sharing of 
experiences and further encouraged Members to reflect on the ideas from the workshop with a view 
to generate recommendations.  
7.8.  Brazil referenced its proposal,57 highlighting that these discussio ns would play a key factor in 
improving notification systems and overall transparency in the Committee.  
7.9.  One Member noted that while some Members had close internal coordination on SPS and TBT 
issues, this was not the case for other Members. As such, Member s were encouraged to share the 
information in G/SPS/7/Rev.4  with their TBT colleagues, as well as to indicate in their notifications 
whether the SPS regulation had also been notified under another agreement. Another Member 
further recognized the need for internal coordination on SPS an d TBT notifications prior to submission 
to the WTO, noting that  the current practice was for SPS and TBT focal points to separately notify 
measures.  
7.10.   One Member also underscored the usefulness of ePing as a communication platform and 
requested the Secretari at to organize training for Members.  An observer organization also underlined 
the need for training on the submission of  notifications and use of the different online platforms, and 
further urged the Secretariat to examine areas where Members could benefit  from training activities.  
7.11.   Some Members supported the  draft recommendation contained in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 . 
In addition, Brazil suggested that the recommendation should go further to propose that notifications 
be submitted simultaneously under both the SPS and TBT Agreements. The Secretariat clarified that 
the Committee's Recommended Transparency Procedures in document G/SPS/7/Rev.4  already 
 
52 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
53 G/SPS/GEN/1694  (and subsequent  revisions) . 
54 JOB/TBT/283 . 
55 G/SPS/W/312 . 
56 A summary report of t his workshop is available in G/SPS/R /96. The programme is available in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1694/Rev.2 . Presentations from the session are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop15072019_e.htm . 
57 G/SPS/W/300 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 15 - 
 
  recommended n otifying such regulations under both Agreements and queried whether Brazil was 
suggesting that this be done simultaneously. Brazil confirmed that this was the case.  
7.12.   Some Member s agreed that notifications should be submitted as quickly as possible under 
both Agreements, even if it might not always be possible to ensure that they would be submitted 
simultaneously.  One Member underscored the difficulties experienced when regulations were only 
notified under one Agreement, but also had implications under the o ther Agreement. Another 
Member suggested addressing the difficulties linked to access to translations of notified regulations, 
as proposed in its written comments.58  
7.13.   Recommendations : 
▪ Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notifi cations when a 
measure has been notified to another Committee.59 Members should include this 
information under the point of the notification format titled "Other relevant documents 
and language(s) in which these are available".  
8  MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMIT S (MRLS)  FOR PLANT PROTECTION  PRODUCTS  
8.1.  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Japan, 
Kenya, Madagascar, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the United States and Uruguay 
presented a revised joint proposal on  addressing the trade effects o f pesticide MRLs .60 The proposal 
contained several recommendations to advance work in the Committee on trade -related MRLs , for 
inclusion in the R eport of the Fifth Review.  The recommendations aim to enable the 
Joint FAO/WHO  Meeting on Pesticide Residues (J MPR) to better respond to increased demand and 
monitor progress on new Codex MRLs; strengthen notification practices of Members for greater 
transparency and predictability of MRLs;  invite reports to the SPS Committee on international and 
regional activitie s on MRLs; enhance collaboration on solutions for MRLs for minor use and specialty 
crops; and note the role of the Committee in increasing coordination and harmonization.  
8.2.    Several Members expressed general support for the proposal, but some  noted concerns  in 
relation to the  additional transparency requirements for pesticide MRLs , which would be 
burdensome. One Member stressed that the recommendations should be balanced and mutually 
beneficial. Other Members highlighted the  challenges related to minor use p esticides . 
8.3.  One Member  acknowledged the importance of pesticide MRLs and raised a question on the first 
recommendation in the proposal in relation to the work of JMPR , observing that the Committee was 
not in a position to discuss the relationship between JMPR and Codex. One of the proponents  
emphasized that the identified recommendation was addressed to Members, and not the actions of 
the Committee. Members were being tasked to convey the importance of trade and JMPR 's critical 
role in establishing MRLs to their respective Codex colleagues, through their national coordination 
mechanisms. The proponent  further highlighted that there had been developments since the 
submission of the paper , in terms of improvements in the functioning of JMPR.  
8.4.  The United States noted that the information presented in its joint proposal was still relevant, 
and further indicated that it looked forward to seeing recommendations reflected in the Fifth Review 
Report. One Member underscored the relevance and importance of discussions on pesticide MRLs, 
as evidenced by the number of  specific trade concerns  (STCs) raised within the Committee.  
8.5.  The United States announced its intention to work with its co -sponsors to u pdate the 
recommendations contained in the original proposal. In response to Turkey's comments suggesting 
that Members going beyond international standards share their risk assessments with the relevant 
ISSB,61 the United States explained how Members could submit inputs to the standard -setting 
 
58 Paragraph 6.4 of G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1 . 
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 Agreement s. 
60 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 . Previous revisions of this proposal were discussed prior to the launch of the 
Fifth Review.  
61 Paragraph 7.3 of G/SPS/W/318/Rev.1 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 16 - 
 
  process. One Member indicated that it looked forward to seeing the revised recommendations, noting 
that this proposal had not been discussed extensively during the Review period.  
8.6.  Recommendations : 
▪ 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 repr esentative expert participation 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 Code x 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 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 accou nt 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 initiatives 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 sect or 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.  
9  REGIONALIZATION  
9.1.  In its  preliminary submission, Brazil raised some concerns on regionalization and suggest ed 
the possibility of automatic recognition of an official OIE (and eventually IPPC) disease status.62 
The European Union proposed  Committee actions to build on the thematic s essions on 
regionalization,63 clarifying that a further examination of dispute settlement reports might not be 
required in light of the information already provided at these sessions. The United States suggest ed 
Committee  activities to promote greater unde rstanding of regionalization and to help Members 
overcome challenges in its implementation.64 
9.2.  Some Members supported the development of case studies and training materials , as outlined 
in the US proposal,  and further suggested experience -sharing through  written submissions and  
greater use of the agenda item on regionalization; discussions on the reasons behind the lack of 
implementation of the SPS Committee Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 
665; inviting the IPPC and OIE to pr ovide further information on their ongoing work;  and organizing  
a thematic session on regionalization.  
9.3.  Some Members also expressed concerns with the concept of the automatic recognition of OIE 
disease status, as suggested in Brazil's proposal . In response,  Brazil recognized that for many 
Members, automatic recognition of OIE disease status was difficult and clarified  that it did not 
 
62 G/SPS/W/301 . 
63 G/SPS/W/298 . 
64 G/SPS/W/303 . 
65 G/SPS/48 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 17 - 
 
  preclude undertaking a risk assessment. The European Union clarified that reviewing the Guidelines 
to Further the Practical Im plementation of Article 6 ( G/SPS/48 ) could help identify obstacles to their 
practical implementation, and a possible need for clarification.  
9.4.  Brazil subsequently presented a proposal  on regionalization ,66 which  expanded on and replaced 
the suggestions on regionalization contained in its previous submission.67 
9.5.  Brazil, the European Union and the United States indicated that they had held discussions on 
the common objectives of their proposals, with a view to identifying practical ideas to cooperate to 
resolve concerns in this area. These ideas inclu ded discussion of case studies to identify benefits and 
challenges, promoting transparency, reinvigorating the standing agenda item on regionalization, and 
seeking inputs from OIE and IPPC.  
9.6.  Members expressed  their general support for continued discussions,  including with the OIE and 
IPPC, on how to address the concerns of Members. Canada  drew attention to its paper on experiences 
with regionalization.68 
9.7.  Brazil, the European Union and the United States subsequently presented a joint paper 
containing  a number  of questions for Members, and for IPPC and OIE.69 The proponents indicated 
that the paper included a synthesis of all ideas  presented  in the ir previous individual proposals, 
highlighting  that it sought to outline a way forward to discussions that could lead to consensus 
recommendations within the Committee. The proponents invited Members,  as well as IPPC and OIE, 
to provide responses to  a set of questions outlined in the joint proposal, and to indicate whether 
other questions should be included. These questions and responses would form the basis for a more 
in-depth discussion in July 2019. Members agreed to move forward on this basis.  
9.8.  Member s,70 IPPC71 and OIE72 submitted comments /responses to the questions in the joint 
proposal . Brazil, the European Union and the United States provided an overview of the se 
comments/responses highlighting several common themes: (i) Members were not interested in 
reviewing the guidelines; (ii) there was strong interest in capacity development and the continued 
sharing of experiences, e.g. through case studies, manuals, etc.; (iii) Members mostly used IPPC 
and OIE documents in their regionalization efforts and not the Committee's guidelines. In additio n, 
some Members emphasized the need for more effective implementation of the guidelines. 
Other  themes such as unnecessary delays and lack of transparency had also been mentioned in the 
responses. The responses from IPPC and OIE had called for greater engag ement by IPPC and OIE 
delegates, and coordination with SPS Committee delegates. The OIE had also further highlighted its 
available resources and activities to enhance implementation, such as the OIE PVS pathway work. 
The OIE had also identified the difficu lties associated with analyzing the information contained in 
SPS notifications, due to differences in data structure, format and quality.  
9.9.  One Member indicated interest in revising particular wording in the guidelines in order to be 
consistent with the OIE' s Aquatic Code. In particular, the suggestion was to make reference to 
"veterinary, aquatic or phytosanitary…" instead of "veterinary or phytosanitary service" in G/SPS/48 , 
as in some countries the competent authorities for aquatic products were not the veterinary 
authorities.  
9.10.   Another  Member  underscored the role of trust and transparency in the process of 
regionalization  and further  noted that while there was a standing agenda item on regionalization, 
there was no process to monitor progress in this area.  Another Member recognized the efforts of 
ISSBs to clarify their standards and emphasized the role of regional economic communities , while 
also emphasizing the need to strengthen regional forums within international organizations.  
9.11.   Some Members underscored the need for more capacity building activities on regionalization, 
as well as the development of case studies as part of the experi ence-sharing process. In addition, 
 
66 G/SPS/W /307. 
67 G/SPS/W/301 . 
68 G/SPS/GEN/1650 . 
69 G/SPS/W/311 . 
70 G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2 . 
71 G/SPS/W/311/Add.3 . 
72 G/SPS/W/311/Add.2  and G/SPS/W/311/Add.2/Corr.1 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 18 - 
 
  one Member highlighted the need for continued information exchange on this topic and indicated 
that it could support a recommendation along the lines of encouraging Members to share their 
experiences in implementing regio nalization. Another  Member indicated that it planned to facilitate 
the use of the SPS Committee guidelines by translating them into its official  language . 
9.12.   One Member  highlighted the challenges faced in dealing with trading partners immediately 
after an out break, given the tendency for bans , and further observed that despite the IPPC and OIE 
guidance, there was a trend towards stricter measures, especially for exotic diseases. The OIE 
highlighted that a key message should be the need for improved coordinatio n and communication 
flow between OIE delegates and SPS Committee delegates.  The IPPC drew Members' attention to 
the existing standards related to pest -free areas and noted that the standard for fruit flies was also 
relevant. The IPPC invited Members to vie w the standards, case studies and other training materials 
available on the IPPC website , and highlighted the International Symposium on Pest Free Areas and 
Surveillance held in Japan in October 2019 . The IPPC further encouraged delegates to consult with 
their national plant protection organizations ( NPPOs ) regarding requests from the SPS Committee.  
9.13.   In discussing the draft recommendations contained in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1 , the 
European  Union indicated that it did not find the suggested recommendations problematic but had 
a prefere nce for a more ambitious result. The European Union, with Brazil and the United States, 
was planning to submit new language, for example to encourage the use of the Committee's 
Guidelines, avoid unnecessary requests to resubmit information, encourage shari ng of experiences, 
cooperation with the ISSBs and improved monitoring. The United States appreciated the 
collaborative work on this topic, based on the discussions at the thematic sessions, and Brazil noted 
that thoroughly addressing th e issue of regionali zation  was a way of showing respect for the work 
of the ISSBs.  
9.14.   One international observer organization also highlighted the need for more technical 
assistance in the area.  
9.15.   Recommendations : 
▪ The Committee recognizes the importance of regionalization73  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 
Process (Section IV).  
▪ With a view to increasing transparency, Members are encouraged to share: their 
experie nces 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 Commi ttee's agenda item for regionalization, Members are encouraged to share 
experiences on: securing another Member's recognition of regional conditions with respect 
to specific plant pests or animal diseases; and recognizing regional conditions of another 
Member with respect to specific plant pests or animal diseases.  
▪ Members appreciate the information shared by OIE and IPPC on their activities in support 
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.  
 
73 In the OIE con text, regionalization is referred to as zoning and compartmentalization.  G/SPS/64  
 
- 19 - 
 
  10  ROLE OF CODEX, OIE AND IPPC WITH RESPECT TO  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERN S  
10.1.   South Africa proposed  inviting the three standard -setting bodies to intervene in the 
Committee when specific trade concerns ( STCs) in their area were discussed.74 Recalling a 2009 
Workshop on the Relationship between the SPS Committee and the " Three Sisters"  (i.e. Codex, OIE 
and IPPC, or ISSBs ), South Africa noted that many STCs were related to international standards, 
and that the "Three Sisters " could play a useful role in discussions of these concerns.  
10.2.   The United States  referred to its c omments on the proposal75 which invited Members to revie w 
the Committee's discussions in 2012 on the role of observers,76 and further request ed that the 
Secretariat provide some background information on the Committee's discussions.  In response, the 
Secretariat provided information on past discussions of the ro le of observer organizations , 
highlighting a  2012 background document on the subject77 and its  annex which also  contained the 
recommendations from the 2009 Workshop.  
10.3.   Several Members agreed that ISSBs  could play a useful role in helping resolve concerns and 
also strengthen the factual basis of STCs discussed in the Committee. They referenced the  useful 
information contained in the Catalogue of Instruments.78 They emphasized  that the role of ISSBs 
should be neutral. Members also expressed interest  in refining the proposal through further 
discussion in order to avoid a situation where ISSBs would need to study all STCs on the agenda, 
trying to identify relevant standards. One Member also questioned  the role that ISSBs could play in 
resolving trade concerns.  
10.4.   South Africa  subsequently  introduced an addendum to its proposal,79 recalling that its original 
proposal built on the recommendations from the 2009 SPS Committee workshop. S outh Africa 
further proposed a more active role of the "Three Sisters " in addressing STCs, specifically in relation 
to implementing recommendation 8 of the 2009 workshop.80 Specifically, South Africa proposed that 
the Secretariat write to the ISSBs request ing that they  analyze the STCs and identify those which 
could have been addressed by the use of existing international standards. The relevant standard -
setting body  would then submit a report to the Secretariat . The Secretariat  would  share the se report s 
with the Committee and organize a workshop wherein each of the ISSBs would  share its analysis of 
the identified STC(s).  
10.5.   Some Members reiterated concerns about the potential burden on ISSBs if they needed to  
review the numerous STCs  discussed in the Committee , given resource constraints ; ISSBs having 
to take positions on STCs in relation to  Members' measures and  existing international standards , 
which could lead to discussions on th e ALOP , which was outside the remit of the ISSBs ; and the 
feasibility of having ISSBs analyze STCs without compromising their independent mandate s. 
They queried the purpose of the ISSB's assessment of STCs, if there would be no obligation following 
the outcome of the assessment.  
10.6.   Other Members were of the vi ew that there could be a role for ISSBs in providing insights to 
solve trade concerns, but also highlighted that ISSBs would need to find ways to prioritize their 
work, so that they could focus on the more persistent and long -standing STCs first. Members 
indicated their willingness to engage in further discussions on the proposal in order to address these 
concerns.  South Africa further noted that no fundamental opposition to the proposal had been raised , 
but that there were practical concerns,  and reiterate d the suggestion  put forward by another Member  
that ISSBs be given an opportunity to respond to the proposal, in order to facilitate the way forward.  
 
74 G/SPS/W/304 . 
75 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
76 The following documents were al so referenced in the submitted comments: (i) the 2012 Secretariat's 
Note on Observers in the SPS Committee - Their Role and Outstanding Requests  (G/SPS/GEN/1157 ); and 
(ii) the 2012 Proposal by Chile and the United States on International Standard Setting Bodies Involvement in 
the WTO SPS Committee in Specific Trade Concerns ( STCs)  (G/SPS/W/267 ). 
77 G/SPS/GEN/1157 . 
78 G/SPS/63 . 
79 G/SPS/W/304/Add.1 . 
80 Recommendation 8 of the 2009 wo rkshop: Requesting the "Three Sisters" to analyze the current 
specific trade concerns raised in the SPS Committee to see which of these could have been addressed by the 
use of the existing international standards (Report of the 2009 workshop, G/SPS/R/57 ). G/SPS/64  
 
- 20 - 
 
  10.7.   Codex, OIE and IPPC provided a joint response81 highlighting the following points: (i) the 
necessity of IS SBs to remain neutral on STCs; (ii) upon request, the ISSBs could provide 
clarification/complementary information during SPS Committee meetings, as long as it did not 
involve interpretation of the provisions in the international standard; (iii) the analysi s and reporting 
on STCs was outside of their respective mandates; and (iv) the considerable staff resources and 
technical expertise that would be needed to review STCs . 
10.8.   South Africa indicated its appreciation for the joint response  and further recalled tha t its 
proposal drew upon recommendations from the October 2009 workshop. South Africa requested the 
ISSBs to only analyze the STCs as recommended in G/SPS/R/57 , within the limit of their resources.  
10.9.   The IPPC highlighted the ISSB's work on trade issues  and underscored  that it was important 
to examine how to implement standards which promote trade.  
10.10.   The OIE drew Members' attention to paragraph 3 of G/SPS/W/314 , noting that OIE could 
provide general information on a standard th at was relevant to a particular STC. However, in most 
cases the issue was the lack of implementation of a standard and as such, the OIE queried the nature 
of specific inputs or analysis that ISSBs could provide in this regard. The OIE requested additional 
clarification on the nature of analysis by the ISSBs that was being requested and underscored the 
need for Members to provide the relevant information in order to facilitate this analysis. OIE  further  
emphasized the resource constraints of ISSBs.  
10.11.   South Afr ica proposed to work with the Secretariat and the ISSBs to see how best to address 
this matter.  
10.12.   Recommendations : 
▪ 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.  
11  VOLUNTARY THIRD -PARTY  ASSURANCE SCHEMES  
11.1.   Belize submitted a proposal  suggest ing that the Committee comme nce work on the 
development of guidelines for the implementation of Article 13 of the SPS Agreement.82 
The submission also included a recommendation to initiate this work either through the formation 
of an ad hoc working group or by holding a workshop. The submission indicate d several areas that 
could be explored if the Committee agreed to first hold a workshop  to explore Members' experiences 
in recognizing third party assurance schemes , CCFIC S work on guidance for competent authorities 
to assess third party assurance schemes, efforts to benchmark such certification programmes with 
international SPS standards, and importing and exporting countries' experiences . 
11.2.   The United States  referred to its  written comments, indicating that it could not support the 
development of guidelines.83 Belize submitted a written statement  addressing the comments, and 
further urg ed Members to support either a workshop or thematic session on third party assurance 
scheme s in 2019 .84 
 
81 G/SPS/W/314 . 
82 G/SPS/W/306 . 
83 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
84 G/SPS/GEN/1661 . G/SPS/64  
 
- 21 - 
 
  11.3.   Belize introduced its  new proposal to hold  a thematic session  on voluntary third -party 
assurance programmes  in March 2020 ,85,86 in view of the ongoing work being undertaken by CCFICS  
on the use of voluntary third -party assurance to inform national food control system planning, and 
the current pilot STDF projects to be undertaken in Belize, Honduras, Mali, Senegal and Uganda. 
The submission outlines the four main areas that could be co vered in a thematic session. 
The submission also includes specific language on the recommendation to hold a thematic session 
for the Report of the Fifth Review.  
11.4.   Some Members highlighted their concerns with the sensitive and divisive nature of the topic 
and underscored that the scope of the thematic session would have to be well -defined in order to 
create a space for constructive discussions , such as the focus on the work of CCFICS and STDF in 
this area.  Belize further clarified , in response to a qu ery from a Member,  that the main purpose of 
its new proposal was to hold a thematic session aimed at sharing good practices that could be used 
in the pilot phase of an STDF project , as opposed to its earlier proposal which had focused on the 
development of  guidelines for the implementation of Article 13 . 
11.5.   Members discussed  the potential  timing of the thematic session . One Member suggested 
rescheduling the thematic session to November 2020  in order to allow for the finalization of CCFICS 
guidelines  which were  expected  in July 2020 . However , another Member noted that previous 
thematic sessions had been held on equivalence where systems approach had been discussed, even 
though the relevant Codex work had not been finalized. The lack of completion of CCFICS work 
would not preclude a thematic session. Belize further explained that the March 2020 date was meant 
to help inform the countries piloting the STDF project and to bridge information gaps. Belize also 
underscored that, in the standard -setting process, Members  could only contribute to discussions 
where they had the relevant knowledge. In this regard, Belize highlighted the difference between 
standard -takers and standard -makers , and emphasized that holding the thematic session in 
March  2020 would provide an oppo rtunity to empower more countries to actively participate in the 
standard -setting process.  
11.6.   The Committee agreed to hold the thematic session in March 2020 , and Belize subsequently  
presented a draft programme for the thematic session,87 highlighting the ove rall objective and the 
structure of the proposed sessions.  
11.7.   In view of the ongoing work being undertaken by CCFICS on the use of voluntary third -party 
assurance to inform national food control system planning, and the current pilot projects that w ould 
be undertaken in Belize, Honduras, Mali, Senegal and Uganda, the Committee scheduled  a thematic 
session on voluntary third -party assurance programmes  for March 2020 . This thematic session would 
cover voluntary third -party assurance as part of national SPS control systems, with the main 
objectives to: receive updates from the international standard -setting bodies on their work in the 
area; facilitate an exchange of information among Members on their use of voluntary third -party 
assurance as part of national SPS control systems; obtain the perspectives and experiences of the 
private sector; and learn about capacity -building initiatives in this area.88 
11.8.   Due to the COVID -19 pandemic , the March 2020 SPS Committee meeting was cancelled,  and 
the Thematic Session on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance Programmes was postponed until further 
notice.89 
11.9.   Recommendation:  
▪ 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. T he Committee 
agrees to reschedule this Thematic Session as soon as the COVID -19 situation allows.  
 
_______________  
 
85 The original proposal referred to "a t hematic session or workshop", however in the July 2019 SPS 
Committee meeting, Belize informed the Committee that the four areas indicated in its proposal would  be best 
covered in a one -day thematic session, as opposed to a two -day workshop.  
86 G/SPS/W/316 . 
87 G/SPS/W/32 0. 
88 G/SPS/GEN/1754/Rev.1 . 
89 JOB/SPS/5/Rev.1/Corr.1  and G/SPS/GEN/1754/Rev.1/Corr.1 .  
  G/SPS/64  
 
- 22 - ANNEX I : LIST OF TOPICS AND PROPOSALS  
Members  ALOP, Risk 
Assessment and 
Science  Annex C  Equivalence  National SPS 
Coordination 
Mechanisms  Notification 
Procedures/ 
Transparency  MRLs of Plant 
Protection Products  Regionalization  Other Topics  
Argentina, 
Australia, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, 
Colombia, Costa 
Rica, Dominican 
Republic, Japan, 
Kenya, 
Madagascar, 
New Zealand, 
Panama, Paraguay , 
Peru, Uganda, 
United  States and 
Uruguay  - - - - - Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  - - 
Australia  - - G/SPS/W/299  - - Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  - - 
Belize - - - - - - - Development of 
guidelines for 
implementation of 
Article 13 
G/SPS/W/306 ; 
thematic session on 
voluntary third -party 
assurance 
programmes 
G/SPS/W/316 ; and 
draft programme for 
Thematic Session on 
Voluntary Third -Party 
Assurance 
Programmes 
(G/SPS/W/320 ) 
Benin, Burkina 
Faso, Burundi, The 
Gambia, Ghana, 
Kenya, 
Madagascar, 
Morocco, Nigeria, 
United  States and 
Zambia  - - - Joint 
submission  
G/SPS/W/297  - - - - 
Brazil  G/SPS/W/301 , 
G/SPS/W/308  - G/SPS/W/301  - G/SPS/W/300 , 
G/SPS/W/312  Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  G/SPS/W/301 , 
G/SPS/W/307 , 
G/SPS/W/311  Joint submission on 
Fall armyworm  
G/SPS/W/305 , 
G/SPS/W/309 , 
G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1 ,  
  G/SPS/64  
 
- 23 - Members  ALOP, Risk 
Assessment and 
Science  Annex C  Equivalence  National SPS 
Coordination 
Mechanisms  Notification 
Procedures/ 
Transparency  MRLs of Plant 
Protection Products  Regionalization  Other Topics  
G/SPS/W/317  
Brazil, 
European  Union 
and United States  - - - - - - G/SPS/W/311   
Brazil, Kenya, 
Madagas car, 
Paraguay, United 
States and 
Uruguay  - - - - - - - Joint submission on 
Fall armyworm  
G/SPS/W/305 , 
G/SPS/W/309 , 
G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1  
Brazil, Kenya, 
Paraguay and 
United States  - - - - - - - Joint submission on 
Fall armyworm   
G/SPS/W/317  
Canada  - G/SPS/W/310 , 
G/SPS/W/321,  
G/SPS/W/328   G/SPS/W/302/Rev.1  - - Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292 /Rev.4  - - 
European Union  - - - - - - G/SPS/W/298 , 
G/SPS/W/311  - 
South Africa  - - - - - - - Role of Codex, OIE 
and IPPC with 
respect to  STCs 
G/SPS/W/304 , 
G/SPS/W/304/Add.1  
United States  Topic of interest: 
risk analysis 
(including risk 
communication)  Topic of 
interest  - Joint 
submission  
G/SPS/W/297  Topic of 
interest  Joint submission  
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4  G/SPS/W/303 , 
G/SPS/W/311  Joint submission on 
Fall armyworm  
G/SPS/W/305 , 
G/SPS/W/309 , 
G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1 , 
G/SPS/W/317  
__________