G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
21 October 2 019 
(19-6867) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
REVIEW OF T HE OPERATION AND IMP LEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMIT TEE 
Note by the Secretariat1 
Revision  
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 1999.2 
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.3 The Second 
Review of the Agreement was completed in July 20 05,4 the Third Review in May 2010,5 and t he 
Fourth  Review in July 2017 .6 At its March 2018 meeting, the Committee adopted a procedure and 
timetable to undertake the Fifth Review of the Agreement.7 
In accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee , this draft report of the Fifth Review 
was first circulated  for discussion at the 18 -19 July 2019 meeting of the Committee . The present 
revision takes into account inputs received from Members. It will be discussed at the SPS Committee 
meeting on  6-8 November 2019.  
The draft 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 – which  will be 
based on  the draft background document, which was initially circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1612  on 
4 May 2018 .8 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/SPS/12 . 
3 WT/MIN(01)/17 . 
4 G/SPS/36 . 
5 G/SPS/53 . 
6 G/SPS/62 . In accordance with the procedures for the Fourth Review, the Committee considered the 
revised report of the Review for adoption  for 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 . 
7 G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1 . 
8 Part B will be updated at a later stage and will be contained in an addendum to the Report of the 
Review.  G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
Table of contents  
Page 
PART A – PROPOSALS S UBMITTED UNDER THE F IFTH REVIEW  ................................ ........  3 
1   INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 
2   APPROPRIATE LEVE L OF PROTECTION, RIS K ASSESSMENT AND SCI ENCE  ..................  3 
3   CONTROL, INSPECT ION AND APPROVAL PRO CEDURES (ANNEX C)  .............................  4 
4   EQUIVALENCE  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  5 
5   FALL ARMYWORM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  7 
6   NATIONAL S PS COORDINATION MECH ANISMS  ................................ ...........................  9 
7   NOTIFICATION PRO CEDURES AND TRANSPAR ENCY  ................................ ..................  10 
8   PESTICIDE MRLS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 11 
9   REGIONALIZATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12 
10   ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDR ESSING SPECIFIC TRAD E CONCERNS  ....... 14 
11   VOLUNTARY THIRD  PARTY ASSURANCE SCH EMES  ................................ ..................  15 
PART B - FACTUAL REPORT  (an updated version of the Background Document of the Fifth 
Review, G/SPS/GEN/1612 , to be included as an addendum to a future revision of this Report)  
ANNEX I: LIST OF TOP ICS AND PROPOSALS  ................................ ................................ .. 17 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  PART A  – PROPOSALS SUBMITT ED UNDER THE FIFTH R EVIEW  
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;  
▪ Pesticide MRLs ;  
▪ Regionalization ; 
▪ Role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in addressing STCs;  and 
▪ Voluntary t hird party assurance schemes.  
1.2.  Part A of this document contains infor mation on the discussions that have taken place in the 
SPS Committee and thematic sessions on the various topics identified above.9 Annex I  provides a 
list of the topics and proposals submitted under the Fifth Review.10 
2  APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF  PROTECTION, RISK  ASSESSMENT AND SCIE NCE 
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 .11 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 relati on to scientific justification (Article 2.2) and risk assessment, Brazil  indicated that the 
Committee 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 consti tute 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 t hat 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 United States expressed interest in the topic of risk analysis , including risk 
communication, noting that the Background Document for the Fifth Review12 containe d valuable 
information on relevant Committee discussions.  
2.4.  Subsequently  Brazil introduced a more detailed  proposal13 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 scientific 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 
                                                
9 The Chairperson's report of the informal meetings on the Fifth Review is contained in 
JOB/SPS/2/Rev. 3. 
10 A summary of all submitted proposals and papers is available in G/SPS/GEN/1625/Rev. 3. In addition, 
comments that have been submitted on these proposals and papers are available in G/SPS/GEN/1655  and 
G/SPS/G EN/1661 . 
11 G/SPS/W/301 . 
12 G/SPS/GEN/1612 . 
13 G/SPS/W/308 , which replaced the relevant sections in  G/SPS/W/301 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
views on the insufficiency of scientific 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 
procedu ral steps necessary for the adoption and application of provisional measures, given the 
impossibility of establishing a proper risk assessment. Brazil recognized 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 ), 
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 principle of the SPS Agreement, and further indicated that it did not  agree with the 
suggestions regarding notifications contained in paragraph 2.1(b)  of Bra zil's proposal , which in its 
view went beyond the obligations of the Agreement and created an additional burden .  
2.7.  Other  Members noted  the importance of the scientific justification principle and the challenging 
nature of discussing this topic, while indica ting 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 Members to engage in discussions on the principles, as well as to p rovide 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. A nother  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 informati on on their standards, 
guidelines and recommendations developed in relation to insufficient evidence. IPPC indicated its 
appreciation for the Committee's work on scientific evidence in emergency situations and 
underscored that risk assessment was a basic t ool 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.   Recommendations : 
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited to inform the Committee of any 
standards, guidelines, and recommendation or other relevant documents that they have 
developed regarding the consideration of insufficient scientific evidence.  
▪ The Committee should continue to discuss the topic of risk and consider next steps for 
discussion based on the information provided by the ISSBs.  
3  CONTROL, I NSPECTION AND APPROV AL PROCEDURES (ANNEX  C) 
3.1.  The SPS Committee held a Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures 
(Annex  C) in July 2018.14 The main objective of the workshop was to bring together officials 
responsible for the implementation of t he 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 Agreemen t. Through presentations, practical case stories and discussions, the workshop aimed 
                                                
14 A summary report of this 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 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  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 expressed interest in continuing to work on this topic.  Canada  proposed to  
hold a thematic session on approv al procedures in November 2019 , to provide Members with an 
opportunity to discuss issues concerning the implementation of Article 8 and Annex C .15 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 which did not follow the principles of the 
SPS Agreement. The Committee agreed to hold a themat ic session on approval procedures in 
November 2019. Members were asked to submit inputs on the programme and speakers, following 
which the Secretariat would prepare a first draft of the programme for circulation and discussion in 
the July 2019 Committee me eting.  The Committee subsequently discussed a draft version of the 
programme , submitted by Canada.16   
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 
well as ISSBs. In addition, s ome Members suggested ha ving a separate section in the thematic 
session to deal specifically with undue delays .  
3.5.  One Member  further proposed that the Committee could consider developing guide lines 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 OI E 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 cl arification.  
3.7.  Further to the discussions, t he Committee has scheduled  the thematic session for November 
2019. It will provide an opportunity for  Members, International Standard Setting Bodies (ISSBs) and 
other organizations with valuable perspectives in thi s area to share experiences, best practices, 
developments as well as relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations of ongoing or potential 
work relevant to approval procedures.  
3.8.  Recommendations : 
▪ The Committee should continue to discuss the implementation of Article 8 and Annex C, 
as well as Members' experiences, building on the information provided at  the thematic 
session and workshop  held during the Review period . 
4  EQUIVALENCE  
4.1.  Australia  proposed t hat the Committee  expand on its existing guidance on recognition of 
equivalence in relation to systems approaches for achieving the importing Members' appropriate 
level of protection .17 In particular, the proposal suggest ed that the Committee explore the 
impediments to the application of the 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 Measures18, specifically in relation to the 
determination of equivalence of a systems approach , and draw on existing and ongoing work of the 
ISSBs.  
                                                
15 G/SPS/W/310 . 
16 G/SPS/GEN/1704 .  
17 G/SPS/W/299 . 
18 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
4.2.  Brazil propose d that Members recognize the importance of the Committee Decision on 
Equivalence, commit to follow its pr ovisions , and reinforce their commitment to enter into 
consultations when requested, following Article 4.2 and the procedures described in the Decision 
itself.19 Canada proposed  holding a workshop or a thematic session on equivalence ,20 and suggested  
includi ng topics such as systems approaches.21 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 experiences of Members with the recognition of 
equivalence.  
4.4.  The first part of the thematic session  on equivalence  was held  in October 2018 ,22 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 Secretariat on equivalence 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 t o be learned from discussions in the SPS and 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 conside red 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 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 equ ivalence; 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 informa tion 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 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 had served to untangle some of the issues identified in its  written  comments .23 
4.7.  The second part of the Thematic Session was held  in March 2019.24 Members shared their 
experience in applying equivalence at different levels to indi vidual measures, groups of measures, 
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 imp ortant trade -facilitating tool.  
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 pro tection' was highlighted several times as the relevant benchmark 
                                                
19 G/SPS/W/301 . 
20 G/SPS/W/302 . 
21 G/SPS/W/ 302/Rev.1 . 
22 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 . 
23 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
24 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GE N/1675/Rev.1 . Presentations from the session are 
available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop18032019_e.htm . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  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 ex isting 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 Workshop 
on Transparency and Coordinatio n, 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 systems 
approach, while noting Codex guidelines in the food safety area.  
4.12.   Recommendations : 
▪ The Committee reaff irms the importance of Article 4 on equivalence and of the 
Committee's Decision  on the Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement 
(Equivalence) .25 
▪ 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.   
▪ Members are encouraged to coordinate with their Codex, OIE, and IPPC representatives 
and experts to highlight the importance of understanding trade impacts during the 
development and discussion of international standards, guidelines, and recommendations 
on the issue of equivalence.  
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 an d technologies  in integrated pest management strategies .26 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 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. One Member indicated that it was still 
studying the proposal and that it reserved 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 accou nt by the proponents.  
                                                
25 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . 
26 G/SPS/W/305 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
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.27 The Thematic Session on Fall Armyw orm was held  on 19 March 201928, 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 technologies were presented. Members shared their 
experiences in dealing with fall armyworm, highlighting their successes and ch allenges.29 
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 count ries 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 reg ulatory 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 
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 gu idelines  
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 Co mmittee; 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 t o others in their national and regional work in facilitating access to tools.  
5.7.  Subsequently, Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay and the United States submitted a new proposal30 
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 safeguarding human, plant and animal health. The concepts outlined in 
the submission are: (i) data portability; (ii) comm on 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 str eamline 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 FAW and that biological methodologies were 
necessar y tools to consider. Kenya  recognized that fall armyworm could compromise food security 
and emphasized the importance of having access to available information and technology in order 
to address the issue. Paraguay  noted the importance of regional and inte rnational efforts to improve 
inspection and testing of products,  as well as increased access to tools.  
5.9.  Several  Members indicated that they needed time to assess the proposal . One Member 
recognized that the outlined concepts tended to be consistent with reg ulatory systems that support 
innovation. Another Member indicated that the proposal outlined some interesting concepts and 
courses of action which could assist in the monitoring of pests. One Member also indicated interest 
                                                
27 G/SPS/W/309  and G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1 . 
28 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.  
29 See the summary report of the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting for an overview of the thematic 
session ( G/SPS/R/94 , forthcoming).  
30 G/SPS/W/317 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  in exploring the compilation of c oncepts 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, Members were encouraged to share their approaches 
in implementing emergency use authorizations.  
5.11.   One Member and an observer or ganization underscored the impact  of the pest in African 
countries, and highlighted the support received from FAO through specific projects , 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 clarific ation 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 FAW and further noted the 
important role that the Committee could play in bringing attention to this pest. IPPC provi ded 
background information in relation to the origin and spread of the disease, and also emphasized the 
importance of information -sharing, innovative work (new technology), and cooperation (at the 
global, regional and national level) in addressing the issu e. 
5.14.   Recommendations : 
▪ The Committee should continue discussions on the basis of the proposals submitted on 
fall armyworm.  
6  NATIONAL SPS COORDIN ATION 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 2018 or early 2019.31 Several 
Members supported the proposal, highlight ing 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 scope 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 
coordination mechanism.  The Secretariat reminded Members that the SPS Comm ittee 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.32 
6.2.  The Committee agreed with the Chairperson's suggestion to address national SPS coordination 
mecha nisms in a Workshop on Transparency and Coordination to be held in July 2019.  
The Secretariat prepared  draft programme ,33 inviting  Members to submit comments . 
6.3.  The Workshop on Transparency and Coordination was held in July 2019 ,34 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 . 
                                                
31 G/SPS/W/297 . 
32 Information on this workshop is available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/sps_17oct11_e.htm .  
33 G/SPS/GEN/1694 . 
34 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/workshop 15072019_e.htm . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
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 with 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 submission of  notifications and use of the different onlin e platforms, and 
further urged the Secretariat to examine areas where Members could benefit from training activities.  
6.6.  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.  
▪ Members  should continue to share experiences  on their national coordination mechanisms  
and discuss strategies and approaches  to improv e SPS coordination and engagement at 
the national level.  
▪ The Committee request s the Secretariat to prepare a collection of resources/good practices 
that can be useful for  Member s in implementing their national coordination mechanism s, 
starting with those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination , 
and including additional resources as suggested by Members .   
7  NOTIFICATION PROCEDU RES AND TRANSPARENCY  
7.1.  Brazil proposed  that Members  exchange  views on the notification of measures not cl early 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.35 Members 
supported  the proposal to hold a workshop or the matic 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 the 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 
transpar ency 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 definitions contained in the SPS Agreement.36 
7.4.  The Secretariat circulated a  draft programme  for the workshop ,37 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.38 Members were requested to submit comments and suggest speakers , and 
Brazil submitted further suggestions.39 
7.5.  One Member reiterated the need to notify relevant measures under both the SPS and TBT 
Agreements and highlighted the import ance of further discussions 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 
Member s 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 
                                                
35 G/SPS/W/300 . 
36 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
37 G/SPS/GEN/1694 . 
38 JOB/TBT/283 . 
39 G/SPS/W/312 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  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 ,40 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 that the workshop had provided an opportun ity 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,41 highlighting that these discussions 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, Members were encouraged to share the 
informati on 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 and TBT notifications prior to submission 
to the WTO , noting that  the current practi ce was for SPS and TBT focal points to separately notif y 
measures .  
7.10.   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 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.   Recommendations : 
▪ Members are encouraged to clearly ind icate in their SPS Committee notification s when a 
measure has been notified to another Committee.42 Members should include this 
information under the point of the notification format titled "Other relevant documents 
and language(s) in which these are available".43 
8  PESTICIDE MRLS  
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 of  pesticide MRLs .44 The proposal 
contained se veral 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 ( JMPR) to better respond to increased demand an d 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 activities 
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.  
                                                
40 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 . 
41 G/SPS/W/300 . 
42 Please refer to section 2.7 of the Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency 
Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7) in document G/SPS/7/Rev.4 , which also makes reference to 
notifying  a regulation containing SPS and TBT measures under both the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
43 In the  Committee's  Recommended T ransparency Procedures  (G/SPS/7/Rev.4) , the explanatory 
section s of the notification formats  in Annex A -1 and Annex B -1 indicate that this type of information should be 
included in the notification format  under the point titled  "Description of content" .  This section would have to 
be updated if the Committee agreed that this information should be i ncluded under the point titled " Other 
relevant documents and language(s) in which these are available" . 
44 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 . Previous revisions of this proposal were discussed prior to the launch of the 
Fifth Review.  G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
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 pesticides . 
8.3.  One Memb er 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 o f 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 Cod ex 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 infor mation 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 STCs raised within the Committee.  
8.5.  Recommendations : 
▪ Members are encouraged to continue to provide information regarding their experiences 
in addressing the trade effects of pesticide MRLs.  
▪ The Committee should  continue to  consider the recommendations outlined in the joint 
proposal on pesticide MRLs . 
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.45 
The European Union proposed  Committee actions to build on the thematic sessions on 
regionalization,46 clarifying that a further examination of dispute settlement reports  might not be 
required in light of the inform ation already provided at these sessions. The United States suggest ed 
Committee  activities to promote greater understanding of regionalization and to help Members 
overcome challenges in its implementation.47 
9.2.  Some Members supported the development of case st udies 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 on Regionalization48; inviting the IPPC and OIE to 
provide further information on their ongoing work;  and organi zing 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 recogni tion of OIE disease status was difficult and clarified  that it did not 
preclude undertaking a risk assessment. The European Union clarified that reviewing the Guidelines 
on Regionalization could help identify obstacles to their practical implementation, an d a possible 
need for clarification.  
9.4.  Brazil subsequently presented a proposal  on regionalization ,49 which  expanded on and replaced 
the suggestions on regionalization contained  in its previous submission.50 
                                                
45 G/SPS/W/301 . 
46 G/SPS/W/298 . 
47 G/SPS/W/303 . 
48 G/SPS/48 . 
49 G/SPS/W/307 . 
50 G/SPS/W/301 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  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 included 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 o f Members. Canada  drew attention to its paper on experiences 
with regionalization.51 
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.52 The proponents indicated 
that the paper included a synthesis of all ideas in the ir previou s individual proposals , highlighting  
that it sought to outline a way forward to discussions that could lead to consensus recommendations 
within the Committee. The propone nts 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 th is basis.  
9.8.  Member s,53 IPPC54 and OIE55 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/respons es 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 mos tly used IPPC 
and OIE documents in their regionalization efforts and not the Committee's guidelines. In addition, 
some Members emphasized the need for more effective implementation of the guidelines. 
Other  themes such as unnecessary delays and lack of tran sparency had also been mentioned in the 
responses. The responses from IPPC and OIE had called for greater engagement 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 difficulties associated with analyzing the information contained in 
SPS notifications, due to differences in data structure, format and quality.  
9.9.  One Me mber 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 phytosa nitary 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 wa s 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 internat ional 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 experience -sharing process. In addition, 
one Member highlighted the need for continue d 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 regionalization. Another  Member indicated that it planned to facilitate 
the use of t he 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 outbreak, 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 coordination and communication 
                                                
51 G/SPS/GEN/1650 . 
52 G/SPS/W/311 . 
53 G/SPS/W/311/Add.1/Rev.2 . 
54 G/SPS/W/311/Add.3 . 
55 G/SPS/W/311/Add.2  and G/SPS/W/311/Add.2/Corr.1 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
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 view the standards, case studies and other training materials 
available on the IPP C 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 NPPOs regarding requests from the SPS Committee.   
9.13.   Recommendations : 
▪ The Committee should maintain regionalization as a standing item of the agenda for its 
regular meetings.  
▪ Members are encouraged to provide information on their experiences in the 
implementation of Article 6, including on the use of the Guidelines adopted by th e 
Committee in that regard ( G/SPS/48) . 
▪ The observer organizations are invite d to keep the Committee informed of their activities 
relevant to the recognition of pest - or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence.  
10  ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDRESSIN G 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.56 Recalling a 2009 
Workshop on the Relationship between the SPS Committee and the " Three Sisters"  (i.e. Codex, IPPC 
and OIE) , Sou th 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 proposal57 which invited Members to review 
the Committee's discussions in 2012 on the role of observers,58 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 th e role of observer organizations , 
highlighting a  2012 background document on the subject59 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 .60 They emphasized  that the role of ISSBs 
should be neutral. Members also expressed interest  in refini ng 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,61 recalling that its original 
proposal built on the recommendations from the 2009 SPS Committee workshop. South 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.62 Specifi cally, South Africa proposed that 
the Secretariat write to the ISSBs requesting  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 subm it a report to the Secretariat . The Secretariat  would  share the se report s 
                                                
56 G/SPS/W/304 . 
57 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
58 The following documents were also 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 State s on International Standard Setting Bodies Involvement in 
the WTO SPS Committee in Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  (G/SPS/W/267 ). 
59 G/SPS/GEN/1157 . 
60 G/SPS/63 . 
61 G/SPS/W/304/Add.1 . 
62 Recommendation 8  of the 2009 workshop : 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/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  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 
outcom e of the assessment.  
10.6.   Other Members were of the view  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 p ersistent 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 reiterated 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.  
10.7.   Codex, IPPC and OIE provided a joint response63 highlighting the following points: (i) the 
necessity of ISSB s to remain neutral on STCs; (ii) upon reques t, 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 analysis and reporting 
on STCs was outside of their re spective 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 that its 
proposal drew upon recommendations from t he 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' attentio n to paragraph 3 of G/SPS/W/314 , noting that OIE could 
provide general inf ormation on a standard that 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 constr aints of ISSBs.  
10.11.   South Africa proposed to work with the Secretariat and the ISSBs to see how best to address 
this matter.  
10.12.   Recommendations : 
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies  are invited to provide information on relevant 
standards, guidelines and recommendations in the SPS Committee meetings.  
▪ The Committee should continue to consider the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in addressing 
specific trade concerns . 
11  VOLUNTARY THIRD PARTY ASSURANCE SCHEMES  
11.1.   Belize submitted a proposal  suggest ing that the Committee commence work on the 
development of guidelines for the implementation of Article 13 of the SPS Agreement.64 The 
submission also included a recommendation to initiate this work eith er 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 
                                                
63 G/SPS/W/314 . 
64 G/SPS/W/306 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
recognizing third party assuranc e 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 State s referred to its  written comments, indicating that it could not support the 
development of guidelines.65 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 
schemes in 2019 .66 
11.3.   Belize introduced its  new proposal to hold  a thematic session  on voluntary third -party 
assurance programmes  in March 2020 ,67,68 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 su bmission outlines the four main areas that could be covered 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 query 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 pr oposal 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 th e 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 fin alized. 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 themati c session in March 
2020 would provide an opportunity 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 also to include the 
specific recommendation from Be lize's proposal  (with a minor edit  to remove the reference to 
'workshop' ) in the revised version of this draft Report.  
11.7.   Recommendation : 
▪ 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 will be undertaken in Belize, Honduras, Mali, Senegal and Uganda, the 
Committee has scheduled  a thematic session on voluntary third -party assurance 
program mes for March 2020 . 
_______________  
 
                                                
65 G/SPS/GEN/1655 . 
66 G/SPS/GEN/1661 . 
67 The original proposal referred to "a thematic session or workshop", however in the July 2019 SPS 
Committee meeting, Belize informed the Committee that the four areas i ndicated in its proposal would  be best 
covered in a one -day thematic session, as opposed to a two -day workshop.  
68 G/SPS/W/316 .  
  G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 17 - ANNEX I : LIST OF TOPICS AND PROPOSALS  
Members  ALOP, Risk 
Assessment  
and Science  Annex C  Equivalence  National SPS 
Committees  Notification 
Procedures / 
Transparency   Pesticide MRLs  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 ; and 
thematic session on 
voluntary third -party 
assurance 
programmes 
G/SPS/W/3 16 
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/W/317  
Brazil, 
European  Union 
and United States  - - - - - - G/SPS/W/311    G/SPS/W/313/Rev.1  
 
- 18 - Members  ALOP, Risk 
Assessment  
and Science  Annex C  Equivalence  National SPS 
Committees  Notification 
Procedures / 
Transparency   Pesticide MRLs  Regionalization  Other Topics  
Brazil, Kenya, 
Madagascar, 
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/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, IPPC 
and OIE in 
addressing 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  
__________