G/SPS/W/315/Rev.1  
 
18 September  2019 
(19-6010) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
FIFTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE AGRE EMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION O F SANITARY AND PHYTO SANITARY MEASURES  
COMPILATION OF COMME NTS SUBMITTED  BY MEMBERS  
ON THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE FIFTH REVIEW1 
Note by the Secretariat2 
Revision  
Members have submitted the following comments on the draft Report of the Fifth Review  
(G/SPS/W/313  and G/SPS/W/313/ Corr.1):3 
1  EUROPEAN UNION  
1.1.  As regards the structure, we agree with the proposed Parts A and C. As to Part B, we wonder 
whether it is really useful to have a separate section on these very few items where there have been 
no suggestions from any Member. While we u nderstand the logic behind the proposal, we are inclined 
to believe that it might be more appropriate to integrate Part B into Part C, since the latter provides 
a comprehensive overview of all the activities of the Committee during the period under review,  
including those referred to under Part B.  
1.2.  As regards the actual contents of the different sections, we have no specific comments at this 
stage.  
2  HONG KONG, CHINA  
2.1.  In the table of contents on page 2 of the document, we suggest relocat ing Annex I to follow  
Part C.  
                                                
1 The draft Report of the Fifth Review ( G/SPS/W/313 ) was circulated on 27 May 2019 (and corrigendum 
G/SPS/W/313/Corr.1  on 21 June 2019).  
2 This document has been prepared under the Se cretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
3 Members have also submitted  draft recommendations for discussion by the SPS Committee , which will 
be made available in document G/SPS/W/31 8. 
12 G/SPS/GEN/1612 . 
21 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1640/Rev.1 . Presentations from  the session are 
available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop301018_e.htm . 
24 G/SPS/W/305 . 
25 G/SPS/W/309  and G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1 . 
26 The programme for this thematic 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.  
27 See the summary report of the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting for an overview of the thematic 
session ( G/SPS/R/94 ). 
32 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
37 G/SPS/W/301 . 
38 G/SPS/W/298 . 
39 G/SPS/W/303 . G/SPS/W/315/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.2.  We s uggest  the following  textual amendment in paragraph 12. 1 to be consistent with 
paragraph  1.2: 
"12.1 Within the context of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of 
the SPS  Agreement, Part B of this document provides information on the Decisions, 
Guidelines and Recommendations of the SPS Committee which are to be reviewed as 
part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement. " 
3  TURKEY  
3.1  Comments in relation to appropriate level of protection, risk assessment and science:  
a. Regarding Brazil 's proposal ( G/SPS/W/308 ) on risk assessment and appropriate level of 
protection, Turkey considers Article 5 - Assessment of Risk and Determination of the 
Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection of the SPS Agreeme nt to be quite 
clear and enough. Therefore, Turkey does not see any need to urge countries to recognize 
the same objectives given there and adding a requirement to notifications given under 
paragraph 2.1(b) of Brazil 's proposal which will create an additio nal burden in terms of 
both administrative work and time.  
3.2  Comments in relation to control, inspection and approval procedures (Annex C):  
a. Turkey would like to express its willingness to share its experiences on the subject.  
3.3  Comments in relation to pesticide MRLs:  
a. It is considered that the countries setting more restrictive measures on MRL s than the 
international standards should share their risk assessments, on which these more 
restrictive measures are based, with the international standard -setting organizations. 
Hence , a common ground would be established to facilitate risk assessment procedures.  
3.4  Comments in relation to regionalization:  
a. Regarding recognition of regionalization and pest and disease -free zones, 
recommendations of international organiz ations and the requirements of exporting 
country could be different. In addition, importing countries sometimes require 
implementation of their own procedures on recognition of pest and disease -free zones 
although they are defined in accordance with the in ternational standards and notified to 
trading partner countries through SPS notification s. 
b. Turkey has completed its regionali zation studies for its zones free of avian influenza in line 
with OIE recommendations, and has published a self -declaration of free dom from the 
disease through OIE and SPS notifications. However, Turkey still faces some problems 
regarding recognition of its free status of avian influenza with countries.  
c. Besides, some exporting countries do not recognize  the disease -free status of regi ons or 
zones within a country and request disease -free status of the entire country.  
d. In this respect, Turkey welcomes the proposal to review the Committee 's Guidelines on 
implementation of Article 6 with the contributions of the international organizations , such 
as OIE and I PPC, as well as organizing trainings with regards to related subjects.  
e. It is beneficial to encourage countries to announce their regionalization efforts related to 
animal diseases, which may affect trade during peace time . This can be d one through  SPS 
notifications, in addition to self -declarations to OIE, as well as  by identify ing regions to 
impose import restrictions  which  therefore  does not affect the  whole country , in case of 
an outbreak.  G/SPS/W/315/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4  UNITED STATES  
4.1.  Comment  in relation to the use of 'risk assessment ' in paragraph 2.3 : "Is this correct? Risk 
communication is a part of risk analysis, not of risk assessment ." 
"2.3 Some Members indicated interest in a further elaboration of Brazil 's proposal, while also 
flagging  concerns. The United States expressed interest in the topic of risk assessment , 
including risk communication, noting that the Background Document for the Fifth Review12 
contained valuable information on relevant Committee discussions. " 
4.2.  Comment s on paragraph 4.4  in relation to the use of 'jurisprudence ' in the text : "In [a] formal 
document such as this, we would prefer 'dispute settlement reports ' if possible. " 
"4.4 The first part of the thematic session on equivalence was held in October 2018,21 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 jurisprudence . The thematic session 
also included a presentation from the Secretariat on e quivalence from a TBT perspective. The 
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 and TBT  Committees. " 
4.3.  Comment s on paragraph 4. 5: "Equivalence is a legal concept in the SPS Agreement. The ISSBs 
do not interpret the agreement – even as applied to their respective areas. " Suggested edits in 
relation to paragraph 4.5:  
"4.5 Representatives of Code x, 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 standards 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 d iscussions  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 wording 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 o f the equivalence Decision and underscored the collaboration between the SPS 
Committee and the ISSBs at the time. " 
4.4.  Suggested edit s in relation to paragraph 5.1 : 
"5.1 Brazil , Kenya , Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay proposed using fall armyworm 
as a c ase 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 .24 The 
proposal recommended forming a working group to undertake several activitie s." 
4.5.  Comments on paragraph 5.2: "Paragraph 9.1 of G/SPS/G EN/1625/Rev.1  more accurately 
describes the proposed activities of the working group ". Suggested edits in relation to paragraph  5.2: 
"5.2 Several Members supported the proposal, including the formation of a working group to 
share experiences and help to id entify  the ways in which application of the principles 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  
precautionary actions.  One Member indicated that it was still studying the proposal and that 
it reserved its position. Another Member raised questions about the link to intellectual property 
issues made in the proposal, and the link to the TRIP S Agreement, also noting that 
biotechn ology was a sensitive subject, and that the development of prescriptive guidelines in 
this area could interfere with Members ' policy space. " G/SPS/W/315/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  4.6.  Comments on the last sentence of paragraph 5.2: "Kenya intervened to say that these concerns 
would be taken into account by the proponents. " 
4.7.  Suggested edit s in relation to paragraph 5. 3: 
"5.3 The Committee decided to hold a thematic session on fall armyworm in March 2019, and 
Paraguay circulated a proposed agenda for this session.25 The Thematic Session on Fall 
Armyworm was held on 19 March 201926, 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 provided information on the nature and th e 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 a pproaches to enable regulatory 
frameworks to facilitate access to safe and effective tools and technologies were presented. 
Members shared their experiences in dealing with fall armyworm, highlighting their successes 
and challenges.27" 
4.8.  Suggested edits in r elation to paragraph 7.3:  
"7.3 The United States agreed with the importance of ensuring appropriate notifications and 
welcomed  The United States shared the concern regarding notification practices and welcomed 
the work under the Fifth Review on this topic,  including work  to provide greater clarity on 
current practices and  to promote a shared understanding among Members on the need to 
notify measures to the appropriate Committee consistent with the definitions contained in the 
SPS Agreement.32" 
4.9.  Comment on paragraph 9.1 in relation to the use of 'jurisprudence ' in the text : "Prefer 'dispute 
settlement reports '." 
"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.37 The European Union proposed  Committee actions to build on the thematic 
sessions on regionalization,38 clarifying that a further examination of jurisprudence  might not 
be required in light of the i nformation already provided at these sessions. The United States 
suggested Committee  activities to promote greater understanding of regionalization and to 
help Members overcome challenges in its implementation.39" 
4.10.   Comments on the title 'Part B – Periodic Review of Committee Decisions, Guidelines and 
Recommendations ': "Shouldn 't this be 'procedures '? There are 3 'procedures ' on the list below, but 
no 'decisions '." 
4.11.   Comments on Part B of the Report : "Could this section be condensed to simply referenc e the 
Guidelines & Recommendations for which the Committee has previously called for periodic review?  
In our view, it 's incumbent on Members to put forward proposals on the ways in which elements of 
the documents or their application need to be evaluated. " 
 
__________