G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
9 June 2020  
(20-4083) Page: 1/25 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
FIFTH REVIEW OF THE OPERAT ION AND IMPLEMENTATI ON OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION O F SANITARY AND PHYTOSA NITARY MEASURES  
COMPILAT ION OF COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  ON THE REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS IN 
G/SPS/W/325  AND ON THE  DRAFT REPORT OF THE FIFTH REVIEW ( G/SPS/W/313 /REV.2  AND 
G/SPS/W/313/REV.2/AD D.1) 
Note by the Secretariat1 
Revision  
This compilation includes Members' submitted comments on the revised recommendations in 
G/SPS/W/325 ; and on the  revised draf t Report of the Fifth  Review (documents G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  
and G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 ).2 In addition, i ncluded in this compilation are Members' comments 
on the US submission  (G/SPS/W/323 ) which also provides comments on the recommendations  in 
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 .  
Section 1  provide s a compilation of Members' recent comments on the revised draft 
recommendations for the Fifth Review  (G/SPS/W/325)  which were submitted by the deadline of 2 
June.3 Section 2  provides a compilation of Member's earlier comments on  Part A of the revis ed draft 
Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. the section  on proposals, G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ), including comments 
on the recommendations and other more general comments.4 Section 3 provides a compilation of 
Members' comments on Part B of the revised draft Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. the factual section, 
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 ).5 
SECTION 1 – MEMBERS' COMMENTS ON  THE REVISED DRA FT RECOMMENDATIONS F OR 
THE FIFTH REVIEW ( G/SPS/W/325 )  
1  APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF  PROTECTION, RISK AS SESSMENT AND SCIENCE  
1.1.  Revised recommendations  (Paragraph 1 .1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):6 
▪ 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 circumstances and scientific evidence emerge  and international 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations, are developed and updated  by Codex, the 
OIE, or the IPPC.  
 
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 Members' previous comments on the draft Report of the Fifth Review are avai lable in documents 
G/SPS/W/315  (and revisions) , and G/SPS/W/318  (and revisions) . 
3 Further to the virtual SPS consultations held on 25 May, Members were invited to submit additional 
comments on the revised draft recommendations in G/SPS/W/325  by the deadline of 2 June. These comments 
are provided in Section 1 of this docume nt. 
4 The comments in Section 2 on G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  were previously circulated in G/SPS/W/324 . 
5 The comments in Section 3 on G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1  were previously circulated in G/SPS/W/324 , 
with the addition of Canada's comments in this version.  
6 See p aragraph 2.15 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  for the  previous version of t hese recommendations.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
 
  ▪ The Committee should continue to discuss the topic of risk, including management of 
situations involving insufficient scientific information, and consider next steps for 
discussion.  
▪ The Committee invites Members to share experiences and examples of nation al efforts to 
consider scientific uncertainty and/or insufficiency of scientific evidence in risk analysis 
and the development and implementation of SPS measures.  
▪ The Committee invites ISSBs to share guidance documents, international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations pertaining to the consideration of  examples of efforts to 
consider  scientific uncertainty and/or insufficiency of scientific evidence in risk analysis 
and the development of international standards, guidelines and recommendations . 
1.1  Brazil  
1.2.  In relation to the first bullet, the expression "new circumstances" is excessively br oad, and 
might give room to interpretation in the sense that factors other than those enshrined in the 
SPS Agreement could be used to legitimize the revision of SPS  measures implemented by Members. 
In this sense, Brazil would like to suggest the suppression of this expression from the 
recommendation.  
1.2  Canada  
1.3.  Canada supports the revised draft recommendations for the Fifth Review.  
2  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCED URES (ANNEX C)  
2.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 2.1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):7 
▪ 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 agenda 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 Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create 
an ele ctronic working group open to the participation of all Members and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic working group, 
outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , 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.  
2.1  Canada  
2.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the draft report of the 5th Review.  
2.3.  Canada suggests the following revisions noted in bold, which aims to address the comments 
raised by Members on the second recommendation and also references the point in G/SPS/W/321  
 
7 These are the recommendations reflected in paragraph 3.11 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
 
  noting that the working group may meet as a physical working group on the margins of the 
SPS Committee meeti ngs: 
▪ Following the fruitful exchange of experiences and ideas at the November 2019 
SPS Committee Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create a n 
electronic  working group open to the participation of all Members and Observers to continue 
to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic  working group , outlined in  
G/SPS/W/321 , 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 o f the obligations 
of the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval procedures; and  
 
iv. Possible future work of the Committee on this topic.  
2.2  European Union  
2.4.  Suggested edits indicated in the text below  in bold: 
▪ 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 agenda 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  Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should 
consider  creating create  an electronic working group open to the participation of all 
Members and Observers to continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The 
electronic working group, outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , 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.  
2.5.  The EU rationale in relation to the followi ng edit  in the second recommendation  "…the 
Committee should consider  creating  create  an electronic working group…"  is as follows:  
a. Some of the work envisaged is already carried out by international standard setting bodies, 
including the Codex Alimentarius C ommission. The Committee should further assess 
whether the setting up of an electronic workin g group (eWG)  is necessary.  
2.6.  The EU rationale in relation to the deletion of the last sentence  and points (i) to (iv) of the 
second recommendation is as follows : 
a. The Committee should further assess whether an eWG is necessary. The remit of such 
an eWG should not be established until the potential scope is properly discussed.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
 
  2.3  Turkey  
2.7.  Turkey would like to request Canada to provide Members with a clarification on how the nature 
of the working group will change after the removal of the word "electronic " from the title of the 
working g roup, as it was stated by Canada in the v irtual informal consultations on 25 May 2020. 
Turkey considers that it wou ld be a useful clarification if it responds to the  following questions:  
a. Is it a change resulting in  a new design and mode of operation for the wo rking group or 
only an editorial change?  
b. In what manner does this change give "flexibility " to the working gro up? 
2.8.  As G/SPS/W/321  defines the "electronic working group " in paragraph 2.4 as "working primarily 
electronically ", in case of Members' acceptance  of that edit, we suggest to remove the following part 
in the recommendations as indicated below  in bold:  
▪ Following the fruitful exchange of experiences and ideas at the November 2019 
SPS Committee Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should  create  
an electronic working group open t o the participation of all Members and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic working group , 
outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , 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 pr ocedure s; and  
iv. Possible future work of the Committee on this topic.  
2.4  United States  
2.9.  In the informal meeting on 25 May 2020, the European Union requested the deletion of items 
(i)-(iv) in the second bullet that contained elements the working group could explore. The European 
Union indicated a preference to leave open the elements for exploration by the working group. 
We welcome openness to ideas and discussion suggested by the E uropean Union. However, we 
believe the phrase "could explore " in the chapeau s entence captures such openness to exploration, 
and therefore support retaining items (i) -(iv). 
3  EQUIVALENCE  
3.1.  Revised recommendations  (Paragraph 3.1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):8 
▪ Members are encouraged to notify any agreement reached on the recognition of 
equivalence.  
▪ Given the importance of Article 4 on equivalence and of the Committee's Decision on the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement (Equivalence), 32 t The Committee 
should continue discussions and information exchange on t he topic of equivalence, 
including s ystems approaches, through the existing agenda item and in -depth discussion 
during future thematic sessions, informal meetings, and working groups as appropriate.  
▪ Members SPS Committee representatives  are encouraged to c oordinate with their Codex, 
OIE, and IPPC representatives and experts to highlight the importance of understanding 
 
8 See p aragraph 4.12 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  for th e previous version  of these recommendations.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
 
  trade impacts during the development and discussion of international standards, 
guidelines, and recommendations ISSB discussions that bear  on the issue of equivalence.  
Footnote 32 : G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . 
3.1  Canada  
3.2.  Canada supports the revised draft recommendations for the Fifth Review.  
3.2  United States  
3.3.  The revised third  bullet does not clearly distinguish between representatives of the ISSBs 
themselves and representatives of Member governments to the ISSBs. To clarify this dis tinction, we 
suggest the following in sertion: "….encouraged to coordinate with their government 's Codex, OIE, 
and IPPC representatives and experts… ". 
4  FALL ARMYWORM  
4.1.  Revised recommendations  (Paragraph 4.1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):9 
▪ Members should continue to exchange experiences on efficient, predictable and science -
based regulatory approaches that help to mitigate the effect of fall armyworm on trade 
while safeguarding  and that also safeguard  human, animal and plant health and life , and 
taking into  account for the  specific needs of smallholdings smallholder farms . 
▪ As appropriate, Members are encouraged to request technical assistance to support efforts 
to improve their integrated pest management strategies and, where needed, their 
regulatory approach to pre -market approval and inspection systems, with the goal of, 
inter alia, enabling greater access to products that strengthen host plant resistance.  
▪ Members are encouraged to continue discussion of the concepts identified in G/SPS/W/317  
that aim to assist Members, part icularly those with capacity constraints, to address SPS 
challenges, in the SPS Committee , including and, where appropriate , in the electronic 
working group on approval procedures established pursuan t referred  to in paragraph 
[insert relevant 5th Revision paragraph with  the proposal by Canada in G/SPS/W/321 . eWG 
recommendation] above.  
4.1  Canada  
4.2.  Canada supports the revised draft recommendations for the Fifth Review.  
4.2  European Union  
4.3.  Suggested edits indicated in the text below  in bold: 
▪ Members should continue to exchange experiences on efficient, predictable and 
science -based regulatory approaches to fight fall armyworm  that help to mitigate the 
its effect of fall armyworm  on trade while safeguarding  and that also safeguard  human, 
animal and plant health and life , and taking into  account for the  specific needs of 
smallholdings smallholder farms . 
▪ As appropriate, Members are encouraged to request technical assistance to support efforts 
to improve their integrated pest management strategies and, where needed, their 
regulatory approach to pre -market approval and inspection systems , with the goal of, 
inter alia, enabling greater access to products that strengthen host plant 
resistance . 
▪ Members are encouraged to continue discussion of the concepts identified in G/SPS/W/317  
that aim to assist Members, pa rticularly those with capacity constraints, to address SPS 
challenges, in the SPS Committee , including and, where appropriate , in the electronic 
working group on approval procedures established pursuan t referred  to in paragraph 
 
9 See paragraph 5.16 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  for the previous version of these recommendations.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
 
  [insert relevant 5th Revision paragraph with  the proposal by Canada in G/SPS/W/321 . eWG 
recommendation] above.  
4.4.  The EU rationale in relation to the edits in the first recommendation is as follows:  
a. Members may take steps to protect against the entry and spread of FAW into their territory. 
These steps may have a n impact on trade of the affected crop. The primary objective of the 
regulatory measures should be to fight FAW. Thus, Member s should develop regulatory 
approaches to fight FAW also in order to ensure that crops can be safely traded. In the 
current version  of this paragraph, the fight against the pest appears to be subordinated to 
trade considerations.  
4.5.  The EU rationale in relation to the edits in the second recommendation is as follows:  
a. As the discussion on FAW has highlighted, several regulatory and policy approaches could 
be available to Members to prevent the entry of FAW and mitigate its effect on crops. 
Thus, the E uropean Union does not consider appropriate to indicate what should be the 
objective of requests for technical assistance and/or to add ress a specific aspect of the 
strategy that could be implemented to fight FAW.  
4.3  United States  
4.6.  In the informal meeting on 25 May 2020, the E uropean Union noted interest in chan ging the 
focus in the recommendations from regulatory approaches to the pest itsel f. We note that the 
exercise at hand is the review of the implementation of the Agreement on the Application of SPS 
Measures, not a  review of a particular pest. Fall armyworm is a case study on the impact of the 
application of SPS approval and inspection p rocedures on, inter alia , Members ' ability to improve 
plant health through integrated pest management strategies.   
4.7.  The E uropean Union also suggested striking the phrase "…with the goal of, inter alia, enabling 
greater access to products that strengthen host plant resistance " in the second bullet. As 
strengthening resistance has been central to the efforts of plant breeders for centuries, we are 
interested to understand the rationale for this suggestion. In the United States, for example, a 
seminal 1990 study10 found that 99.99 percent of pesticides in the American diet were produced by 
the plants themselves to defend against pests and diseases. As amply shown by the representative 
of CIMMYT at the thematic session on FAW, breeders make use of, inter alia , such naturally occurring 
traits to improve host plant resistance. The United States strongly supports efforts to enable greater 
access to crops with strengthened resistance, particularly by smallholder farmers.   
5  NATIONAL SPS COORDIN ATION MECHANI SMS 
5.1.  Revised recommendations  (Paragraph 5.1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):11 
▪ 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 posi tions 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 of 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 mechanisms, starting with 
those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination with part icular 
 
10 Ames, et al, Dietary Pesticides, PNAS October 1990.  
11 See paragraph 6.7 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  for the previous version of these recommendations.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
 
  attention to the concepts and questions outlined in G/SPS/W/297 , and including additional 
resources as suggested by Members.  
5.1  Canada  
5.2.  Canada supports the revised draft recommendations for the Fifth Review.  
5.2  Japan  
5.3.  In relation to the third recommendation in paragraph 5.1 of G/SPS/W/325 , Japan supports the 
current draft with the deletion of particular reference to G/SPS/W/297  because it gives more 
flexibility and an expanded scope of work in the future.  
5.3  United States  
5.4.  We suggest deletion of this comma in the first bullet: "….to enable the development of 
coordinated , SPS positions that are  consistent with the obligations of the SPS Agreement ." 
6  NOTIFICATION PROCEDU RES AND TRANSPARENCY  
6.1.  Revised recommendations  (Paragraph 6.1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):12 
▪ Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notifications whe n a 
measure has been notified to another Committee.51 Members should include this 
information under the point of the notification format titled "Other relevant documents 
and language(s) in which these are available".52 
Footnote 51:  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. 
Footnote 52 : In the Committee's Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.4), the 
explanatory sections 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 und er the point titled "Description of content". 
This section would have to be updated if the Committee agreed that this information should be included 
under the point titled "Other relevant documents and language(s) in which these are available".  
6.1  Canada  
6.2.  Canada supports the revised draft recommendations for the Fifth Review.  
6.2  Japan  
6.3.  In relation to footnote 51 in paragraph 6.1, Japan supports the inclusion of footnote 51 because 
the footnote reminds us of the original intention of this recommendation that measure s containing 
both SPS and TBT elements should be notified according to the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
6.4.  In relation to footnote 52 in paragraph 6.1, Japan supports the deletion of footnote 52 because 
once we agree to include the information at the "Other relevant documents" in the text, this footnote 
contradicts the text.   
7  MRLS FOR PLANT PROTECT ION PRODUCTS  
7.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 7.1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):13 
▪ 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 
 
12 See p aragraph 7.13 of G/SPS/W/313/Re v.2 for the previous version of these recommendations.  
13 These are the recommendations reflected in paragraph 8.6 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
 
  national resource availability, and could involve consideration of, inter alia, options for 
increasing support to JMPR, including increasing representative expert partici pation 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 Codex 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 account when considering propo sed 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 
relevant, in order to facilitate trade.  
▪ The Committee invit es 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 sector to invest in registration and 
stewardship o f 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.  
7.1  Brazil  
7.2.  In relation to the third bullet, SPS measures, including MRLs, are to be harmonized according 
to Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, which brings the ISSBs to the core of the system. Encouraging 
Members to "improve harmonization to regional MRLs" may result in deviations from Codex 
standards, which could weaken the implem entation of Article 3. In this sense, Brazil would like to 
suggest the suppression of this reference to "regional MRLs " from the recommendation.  
7.3.  Note: After the clarifications made by the U nited States, regarding the context in which this 
regional MRL issu e had emerged and the fact that this encouragement would only take place in case 
of non -existence of a Codex MRL, Brazil would then withdraw the suggestion to delete it, but would 
welcome the insertion of some language containing that clarification.  
7.2  Canada  
7.4.  As a cosponsor of this proposal, Canada supports the recommendations . 
7.3  Japan  
7.5.  In relation to the recommendations in paragraph 7.1, as a cosponsor of this proposal, Japan 
supports the recommendations. Japan would like to continuously collaborate with Members  and 
relevant observer organizations such as Codex, APEC, and OECD, in order to promote development 
of MRL standards based on scientific justification.  
8  REGIONALIZATION  
8.1.  Revised recommendations  (Paragraph 8.1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):14 
▪ The Committee recognizes the importance of regionalizationX to safe trade in agricultural 
products and processed products . The Committee encourages Members to respond to 
 
14 See paragraph 9.15 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  for the previous version of these recommendations.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
 
  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 (Sec tion IV).  
▪ With a view to increasing transparency, Members are encouraged to share: their 
experiences in developing and strengthening their frameworks for regionalization; and 
information on their procedures and processes related to regionalization, includi ng on how 
another Member may request recognition of pest - or disease -free areas.  
▪ Under the Committee's agenda item for regionalization, Members are encouraged to share 
experiences on: securing another Member's recognition of regional conditions with respec t 
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 regiona lization. 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 Co mmittee should further discuss issues related to Article 6, including the Committee 
Guidelines, through future thematic sessions, informal meetings or working groups, as 
appropriate.  
New footnote x : In the OIE context, regionalization is referred to as zoning and compartmentalization.  
8.1  Canada  
8.2.  Canada supports the revised draft recommendations for the Fifth Review.  
8.2  Japan  
8.3.  In relation to the first recommendation in paragraph 8.1, Japan recommends deletion of 
"and processed products " because the words do not appear in relevant international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations or the guidelines adopted by the WTO SPS Comm ittee ( G/SPS/48 ). 
Japan is flexible with the replacement of "agricultural products " with "animals, animal products, 
plants and plant products ". 
8.3  United States  
8.4.  In the informal meeting on 25 May 2020, Japan asked Peru for the rationale for the insert ion 
of the term "processed products " in the first bullet. We appreciate the effort by Japan to bring 
attention to this insertion. The United States does not support the retention of the term "processed 
products " in this bullet. In general, processed produc ts are treated in manners that make them safe 
to trade regardless of the disease status of the area of origin, rendering regionalization irrelevant. 
To the extent processed products are food or feed products, they would be considered agricultural 
products for trade purposes, and it would be problematic to suggest that they are not.  
9  ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDRESSIN G SPECIFIC TRADE CON CERNS  
9.1.  Revised recommendations  (Paragraph 9.1 of G/SPS/W/325 ):15 
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies (ISSBs ) are invited to provide information on 
relevant their standards , guidelines and recommendations in the SPS Committee 
meetings.  
 
15 See paragraph 10.12 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  for the previous version of these recommendations.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
 
  ▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited  Committee encourages SPS 
Committee representatives  to provide information on  consult with their relevant ISSB 
experts for advice when a specific trade concern arises regarding one of the ISSB's  relevant  
standards, guidelines and or recommendations in the SPS Committee meetings . 
▪ The Committee may continue to consider the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in addressing  
with respect to  specific trade concerns.  
9.1  Brazil  
9.2.  In relation to the third bullet, Brazil believes that the role of ISSBs within the work of the 
Commit tee, including specific t rade concerns, has to be strengthened. In this sense, we recommend 
replacing "may" by "should" in this recommendation.  
9.2  Canada  
9.3.  Canada supports the second and third bullets of revised draft recommendations for the 
Fifth Review.  
9.4.  Regarding the first recommendation, Canada recalls the information provided by Codex, IPPC 
and OIE contained in G/SPS/W/314 . In line with this proposal , Canada suggests the following 
revisions noted in bold: 
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies (ISSBs ) are invited to provide factual  information 
on relevant their standards , guidelines and recommendations , without  interpreting the 
provisions,  in the SPS Committee meetings.   
9.3  Indonesia  
9.5.  The role of Codex, IPPC and OIE as ISSBs  is to provide international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations to be used to support the determination of implementing SPS measures in trade 
by Members. When Members raise specific trade concerns in the Committee Meeting , the Secretariat 
gives time to the related ISSB to deliver its statement . This is important to ensure that measures 
taken by a country/Member do not violate the applicable provisions or international standards.  
9.4  Japan  
9.6.  In relation to the three recommendatio ns in paragraph 9.1, Japan can support the draft as it 
is currently written.  
9.5  United States  
9.7.  Our strong preference is to delete the first bullet inviting the ISSBs to speak to standards, 
guidelines, or recommendations in relation to specific trade concerns ( STCs). We note that the ISSBs 
made their vie ws clear in G/SPS/W/314 : "It is necessary that ISSBs remain neutral on STCs, given 
that the interpretation of standards, guidelines and recommendations is the responsibility of each 
Member ." We believe the Committee should respect the expressed views of the ISSBs.  
10  GENERAL COMMENTS  
10.1  Belize16 
10.1.  Belize takes this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for compiling and circulating the 
comments received from Members on the draft Report of the Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement.  
10.2.  Our intervention covers 3 issues:  
 
16 Belize also submitted its comments on the Fifth Review as a separate document  G/SPS/W/327 . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
 
  1. The format  of the Report;  
2. Decisions that were taken but which did not materialize as a result of the pandemic;  and 
3. The next steps – how to implement the decisions that are still pending.  
The Format of the Report  
10.3.  Document G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 , under the section "Voluntary Third -Party Assuran ce 
Schemes ", contains an accurate summary of the discussions that transpired in the Committee under 
this agenda item and includes the decision of the Committee to hold a thematic session in March 
2020.  
10.4.  We also recognize that document G/SPS/W/325  only reflects recommendations  and in so 
doing, unfortunately does not capture the decisions of the Committee.  
10.5.  It is our view that if the decision of the Committee is captured in a similar fashion as the 
recommendations, the reporting will be balanced. As a result, we propose that the Committee 's 
decisi on to hold a Thematic Session on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance be captured in a similar 
manner.  
10.6.  This recommendation would be subject to the acceptable approved WTO format for writing 
the report.  
10.7.  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. The Committee 
agrees to reschedule this Thematic Session as soon as the COVID -19 situation allows.  
 
10.8.  We also agree wi th the inclusion of the footnotes with reference to the documents: 
G/SPS/W/32 0 and G/SPS/GEN/1754/Rev.1 . 
10.9.  Belize considers that if this is done, and the Committee desires to have a document which 
solely reflects recommendations, then it will also need to capture this decision . 
Decisions that did not materi alize due to the C OVID -19 pandemic  
10.10.   Considering that the Committee was unable to hold that session due to the C OVID -19 
pandemic , we feel that if the decision is not reflected under the revised draft recommendations for 
the Fi fth Review of the Report, this decision could easily be lost.  
10.11.   We do not know how that can be done but  would simply like to signal that it should be 
reflected in the report.  
The next steps – Implementation of pending decisions  
10.12.   We note that some Members have su ggested the possibility of holding webinars to advance 
the work of the Committee , including exploring the possibility of using that avenue for covering some 
of the thematic sessions.  
10.13.   Belize would like to share that we are still reviewing this consideration  and will need more 
time to explore this possibility due to several challenges: a webinar has a shorter time frame and 
less areas would be covered. The time difference (different countries have different time zones) is 
also another challenge and last but n ot least, limitations in technology.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
 
  SECTION 2 – MEMBERS' COMMENTS ON  PART A OF THE REVISED DRAFT RE PORT OF THE 
FIFTH REVIEW ( SECTION ON PROPOSAL S, G/SPS/W/313/REV.2 )  
11  APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF  PROTECTION, RISK AS SESSMENT AND SCIENCE  
11.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 2.15 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ 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 regi onal systems, and their risk assessment 
techniques, as new circumstances and scientific evidence emerge  and international 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations, are developed and updated  by Codex, the 
OIE, or the IPPC.  
▪ The Committee should continue to  discuss the topic of risk, including management of 
situations involving insufficient scientific information, and consider next steps for 
discussion.  
▪ The Committee invites Members to share experiences and examples of national efforts to 
consider scientifi c uncertainty and/or insufficiency of scientific evidence in risk analysis 
and the development and implementation of SPS measures.  
▪ The Committee invites ISSBs to share examples of efforts to consider scientific uncertainty 
and/or insufficiency of scientifi c evidence in risk analysis and the development of 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  
11.2  Canada  
11.2.  Canada has a suggested revision to the last recommendation:  
▪ The Committee invites ISSBs to share guidance documents, international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations pertaining to the consideration of  examples of efforts to 
consider  scientific uncertainty and/or insufficiency of scientific evidence in risk analysis 
and the development of international standards, guidelines and recommendations . 
11.3  India  
11.3.  We note that the recommendations make a reference to "scientific uncertainty and/or 
insufficiency of scientific evidence" in risk analysis as well as development and implementation of 
measures. While Article  5.7 of the SPS Agreement pertains to a situation where the relevant scientific 
evidence is insufficient, the SPS Agreement does not refer to the concept of "scientific uncertainty". 
India would like to seek a clarification regarding the legal basis of the  term, "scientific uncertainty".  
12  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDU RES (ANNEX C)  
12.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 3.11 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ The Committee should continue discussions and information exchange on the topic of 
control, inspection and approval procedu res. To that end, the Committee should establish 
a formal SPS Committee agenda 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 Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create 
an electronic working group open to the participation of all Members and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic working group, 
outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , could explore the:  
i. Key challenges of approval procedures that impact international trade that 
Members should seek to address;  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
 
  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 Com mittee on this topic.  
12.1  Canada  
12.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the draft Report of the Fifth Review.  
12.3.  Canada does not support the suggested revision from the United States in G/SPS/W/323  to 
remove reference to the working group proposal; Canada considers it important to include the 
reference to the proposal ( G/SPS/W/321 ) in the recommendation, since the pro posal provides 
further detail and context for the establishment of the working group.  
12.2  India  
12.4.  Rather than reference G/SPS/W/321 , we suggest that the topics that the e -Working Group 
could explore, are listed directly in the recommendations themselves.  
12.3  Korea, Republic of  
12.5.  Korea, Republic of submits the following comments on the recommendations of the draft 
Report in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 . We would like to delete the following sentences, for  a more flexible 
approach to the electronic working group  (recommendations in paragraph 3.11):  
▪ 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 agenda item on Annex C under the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement agenda i tem to enable Members to share 
information on this topic.  
▪ Following the fruitful exchange of experiences and ideas at the November 2019 
SPS Committee Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create 
an electronic working group open to t he participation of all Members and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic working group, 
outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , could explore the:  
i. Key challenges of approval procedures that impact international trade that 
Members should seek to address;  
ii. Princi ples 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 A greement as they apply to approval procedures; and  
iv. Possible future work of the Committee on this topic.  
12.4  United Kingdom  
12.6.  The United Kingdom supports the recommendation to consider Annex C as a standalone item 
on the agenda to facilitate an exchange of views.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
 
  12.5  United States17 
12.7.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ 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 for mal SPS Committee agenda 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 Commit tee Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, the Committee should create 
an electronic working group open to the participation of all Members and Observers to 
continue to examine the topic of approval procedures. The electronic working group,  
outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , The elect ronic 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 app ropriate 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.  
12.8.  Comments from the United States on its suggested edits for the second recommendation on 
control, inspection and approval procedures in relation to the revised text " The electronic working 
group,  outlined in G/SPS/W/321 , The electronic working group  could explore the…" : 
a. Rather than referenc e G/SPS/W/321 , we suggest the reco mmendation list the topics that 
the eWG "could" explore. That way, the eWG can take up the elements of interest to 
Members.  
13  EQUIVALENCE  
13.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 4.12 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ Members are encouraged to notify any agreement reached on the recognition of 
equivalence.  
▪ Given the importance of Article 4 on equivalence and of the Committee's Decision on the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement (Equivalence),32 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.  
Footnote 32 : G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . 
 
17 The United States also submitted its comments on the reco mmendations in G/SPS/W /313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
 
  13.2  Canada  
13.2.  Canada supports the reco mmendations in the draft report of the Fifth Review and the revisions 
to the recommendations made by the United States in G/SPS/W/323 .  
13.3  United States18 
13.3.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ Members are encouraged to notify any agreement reached on the recognition of 
equivalence.  
▪ Given the importance of Article 4 on equivalence and of the Committee's Decision on the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement (Equivalence),19 the Committee should 
continue discussions and information exchange on the t opic 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 SPS Committee representatives  are encouraged to coordi nate with their 
country's  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 ISSB discussions that be ar on the issue of 
equivalence.  
13.4.  Comments from the United States on its suggested edits for the second recommendation on 
equivalence in relation to the deleted text " Given the importance of Article 4 on equivalence and of 
the Committee's Decision on the Imp lementation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement 
(Equivalence),20": 
a. On further reflection, we would prefer not to single out specific obligations as "important" 
or to reaffirm. The SPS Agreement lays out a balance of rights and obligations.  
13.5.  Comments from the U nited States on its suggested edits for the third recommendation on 
equivalence in relation to the revised text "… ISSB discussions that bear  on the issue of 
equivalence …": 
a. We would like this to refer to ISSB discussions bearing on equivalence more broadly.  This 
accounts for the trade significance of discussions that bear on equivalence but that are not 
about the development of standards, guidelines, or recommendations specifically focused on 
the general topic of equivalence; and this ensures the relevance o f the 5th Review 
recommendation regardless of how ISSB agendas and discussions evolve.  
14  FALL ARMYWORM  
14.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 5.16 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ Members should continue to exchange experiences on efficient, predictable and science -
based regulatory approaches that help to mitigate the effect of fall armyworm on trade 
while safeguarding human, animal and plant health and life, and taking into account  
specific needs of smallholdings.  
▪ As appropriate, Members are encouraged to request technical assistance to support efforts 
to improve their integrated pest management strategies and, where needed, their 
regulatory approach to pre -market approval and inspe ction systems, with the goal of, inter 
alia, enabling greater access to products that strengthen host plant resistance.  
 
18 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . 
19 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . 
20 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
 
  ▪ 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 addre ss SPS 
challenges, in the SPS Committee, including where appropriate in the electronic working 
group on approval procedures established pursuant to the proposal by Canada in 
G/SPS/W/321 . 
14.1  Canada  
14.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the draft report of the Fifth Review and the revisions 
to the recommendations made by the United States in G/SPS/W/323 .  
14.3.  Canada welcomes discussion of the concepts identified in G/SPS/W/317  in the electronic 
working group on approval procedures, which was proposed by Canada in G/SPS/W/321 . 
14.2  India  
14.4.  We find that there are certain ambiguities in the text of the recommendations:  
a. How does the Membership understand the term "smallholdings "? It is a term neither used 
in the SPS Agreement nor in G/SPS/W/317 .  
b. It is unclear what kin d of technical assistance is envisaged/expected in paragraph 2 of the 
recommendations. Is the technical assistance expected from the Membership or the 
Secretariat? If the former, are the contours of the technical assistance to be guided by 
Article 9 of the  SPS Agreement which deals with the subject, or does it go beyond the 
scope of Article 9? We may consider making a reference to Article 9 in the second 
paragraph if we want the level of obligation on the non -requesting Members to be limited 
to "facilitate( ing) the provision of technical assistance to other Members, especially 
developing country Members, either bilaterally or through the appropriate international 
organizations. "  
c. With respect to the third paragraph of the recommendations, the stakeholders ha d earlier 
identified certain problems with the various concepts listed in G/SPS/W/317 . In India 's 
comments on G/SPS/W/318 , where it was proposed to recognise the concepts of: i) data 
portability; (ii) common application dossiers; (iii) joint risk assessments; (iv) adaptation 
to regional conditions; (v) unilateral recogniti on; (vi) mutual recognition; (vii) familiarity; 
(viii) history of safe use; (ix) equivalence; (x) harmonization; and (xi) emergency use 
authorization, India has asked the following questions:  
i. Are the concepts being proposed to address the SPS challenges re lating to FAW 
voluntary in nature or are they to be adhered to in a prescriptive manner?  
ii. Is the list of concepts exhaustive or is it merely an indicative/inclusive one?  
iii. With respect to the following:  
1) Data portability;  
2) Common application dossiers;  
3) Joint ris k assessments;  
4) Familiarity  
5) History of safe use; and  
6) Emergency use authorization.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
 
  What is the legal basis for these concepts under the SPS Agreement? Do the 
concepts adhere to the requirements specified under the SPS Agreement or are 
some of them SPS-plus?" 
d. We note that the recommendation now is only an encouragement to continue discussion 
on these concepts, including through the electronic working group. We would still 
encourage the proponents to provide written answers to above -mentioned question s that 
India has raised on the Fall Army Worm proposal.  
14.3  Chinese Taipei  
14.5.  Our comments on the document G/SPS/W/323  are to point 4 on fall armyworm , where the 
United States suggests to replace "smallholdings" to "smallholder farm families". Because the 
definition of "family" might be different  among the 164 WTO Members, and in some Members, it 
might mean a much bigger family than in the United States, we consider whether it might be clearer 
to use "smallholders" or "smallholdings" to represent the idea of "small".  
14.4  United States21 
14.6.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ Members should continue to exchange experiences on efficient, predictable and 
science -based regulatory approaches that help to mitigate the effect of fall armyworm on 
trade while safeguarding  and that also safeguard  human, animal and plant health and life , 
and taking into  account for the  specific needs of smallholdings smallholder farm families . 
▪ As appropriate, Members are encouraged to request technical assistance to support efforts 
to improve their integrated pest management strategies and, where needed, their 
regulatory approach to pre -market approval and inspection systems, with the goal of, 
inter alia, enabling greater access to products that strengthen host plant resistance.  
▪ Members are enc ouraged 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 , including and, where appropriate , in the electronic 
working group on approval procedures established pursuan t referred  to in paragraph 
[insert relevant 5th Revision paragraph with  the proposal by Canada in G/SPS/W/321 . eWG 
recommendation] above.  
14.7.  Comments  from the United States on its suggested edits for the first  recommen dation on fall 
armyworm in relation to the revised text "… smallholder farm families. ": 
a. The "smallholding" would be the land itself, which would not have needs. The original 
"smallholder farm families" seems more appropriate.  
14.8.  Comments from the United States  on its suggested edits for the third recommendation on fall 
armyworm in relation to the revised text "…  established pursuan t referred  to in paragraph [insert 
relevant 5th Revision paragraph with  the proposal by Canada in G/SPS/W/321 . eWG 
recommendation] abo ve.": 
a. Due to confusion about what "established pursuant to the proposal by Canada" would bring 
in, refer to the eWG in this way.  
15  NATIONAL SPS COORDIN ATION MECHANISMS  
15.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 6.7 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ 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 consistent with the 
 
21 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
 
  obligat ions 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 i mprove SPS coordination and engagement at 
the national level with the aim of strengthening implementation of the SPS Agreement, 
including resolving specific trade concerns.  
▪ The Committee requests the Secretariat to prepare a collection of resources that ca n be 
useful for Members in implementing their national coordination mechanisms, starting with 
those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination with particular 
attention to the concepts and questions outlined in G/SPS/W/297 , and including additional 
resources as suggest ed by Members.   
15.1  Canada  
15.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the draft report of the Fifth Review and the revisions 
to the recommendations made by the United States in G/SPS/W/323 . 
15.3.  Canada is uncertain of the necessity to emphasize in the last recommendation the 
development of the collection of resources with pa rticular attention on the concepts and questions 
outlined in G/SPS/W/297 . Rather the collection of resources should focus on the resources discussed 
during the Workshop on Transparency and Coordination. If desired, Members could suggest 
additional resources to the Secretariat based on the concepts and questions outline in G/SPS/W/297  
or other experiences.  
15.2  Korea, Republic of  
15.4.  Korea, Republic of  submits  the following comments on the Recommendations of  the d raft 
Report in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 . We would like to delete the following sentences, for  a more flexible 
approach to the National SPS coordinatio n mechanisms  (recommendations in paragraph 6.7). 
▪ 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 coor dinated SPS positions 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 mech anisms 
and discuss strategies and approaches to improve SPS coordination and engagement at 
the national level with the aim of strengthening implementation of the SPS Agreement, 
including resolving specific trade concerns.  
▪ The Committee requests the Secreta riat to prepare a collection of resources that can be 
useful for Members in implementing their national coordination mechanisms, starting with 
those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination with particular 
attention to the concepts a nd questions outlined in G/SPS/W/2 97, and including additional 
resources as suggested by Members.   
15.3  United States22 
15.5.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ 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 
 
22 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
 
  the obli gations 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 t o improve SPS coordination and engagement at 
the national level with the aim of 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 mechanisms, starting with 
those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency and Coordination with particular 
attention to the concepts and questions outlined in G/SPS/W/297 , and including additional 
resources as sugg ested by Members.  
15.6.  Comments from the United States on its suggested edit for the first recommendation on 
national SPS coordination mechanisms:  
a. To be clear that we want the positions to be consistent with the SPS Agreement – and that 
we are not saying there  is an SPS Agreement requirement for internally coordinated 
positions.  
16  NOTIFICATION PROCEDU RES AND TRANSPARENCY  
16.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 7.13 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notifications when a 
measure has been notified to another Committee.51 Members should include this 
information under the point of the not ification format titled "Other relevant documents 
and language(s) in which these are available".52 
Footnote 51 : Please refer to section 2.7 of the Recommended Procedures for Implementing the 
Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7) in docu ment 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.  
Footnote 52 : In the Committee's Recommended Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.4 ), the 
explanatory sections 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 included 
under the point titled "Other relevant documents and language(s) in which these are available" . 
 
16.1  Argentina  
16.2.  Argentina does not consider it necessary to remove footnote 51 from document 
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  because there is nothing to indicate that it might create confusion, as argued 
by the United States. On the contrary, it considers that the reference to document G/SPS/7/Rev.4  
is relevant, in that the section in question mentions that it is preferable, in addition  to notifying both 
the SPS Committee and the TBT Committee when a measure falls under both the SPS and TBT 
Agreements, to indicate which parts of the measure fall under each respective agreement. Such an 
indication could facilitate the analysis and process ing of notifications, especially in countries with 
fewer resources, thereby generating greater transparency.  
16.3.  On the other hand, Argentina agrees with the comments made by the United States regarding 
the removal of footnote 52 from document G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 , given that it propo ses that 
indication of whether the measure has also been notified to the TBT Committee should be included 
in point 9 ("Other relevant documents"), while document G/SPS/7/Rev.4  recommends that point 6 
("Description of content") should include an indication of which parts of a measure subject to double 
notification fall under the SPS Agreement and which parts fall under the TBT Agreement.  
16.2  Canada  
16.4.  Canada supports the recommendation in the draft report of the Fifth Review.  
16.5.  Regarding the US comments in G/SPS/W/323 , Canada supports the deletion of the second 
footnote .  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 20 - 
 
 
  16.6.  However, Canada sees value in the inclusion of the first footnote and does not consider that 
this footnote would lead to confusion.  
16.3  United States23 
16.7.  The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ Members are encouraged to clearly indicate in their SPS Committee notifications when a 
measure has been notified to another Committee.24 Members should include this 
information under the point of the notification format titled "Other relevant documents 
and language(s) in which these are available".25 
16.8.  Comments from the United States on its suggested edit for the recommendation on 
notification procedures and transparency:  
a. We do not believe that the footnotes should be included. These footnotes are slightly off 
point in ways that could create confusion.  
b. We feel the content of footnote 4  (i.e. the second footnote)  is inaccurate. Box 6, description 
of content, suggests identifying which parts of a dual -notified measure are SPS and which 
TBT. 
c. The new proposed notification for box 9 (other relevant  documents) would indicate whether 
the measure was also notified to the TBT committee. Whether it has been dually notified is 
different from the question of which parts are SPS and which TBT.  
17  MRLS FOR PLANT PROTE CTION PRODUCTS  
17.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 8.6 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ 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 representative 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 Codex 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 pre dictability 
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 partner s meaningfully 
into account 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 
 
23 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . 
24 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.  
25 In the Committee's Recommended Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.4) , the explanatory 
sections 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 i f the Committee agreed that this information should be included under the point titled "Other 
relevant documents and language(s) in which these are available" . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 21 - 
 
 
  levels to improve harmonization to Codex MRLs, as well as to regional MRLs where 
relevant,  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 sector 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.  
17.1  Argentina  
17.2.  The recomm endations contained in the report are in line with those proposed in document 
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 , which was submitted by Argentina together with other Members. It is 
considered particularly important to include in the report the recommendations put forward in this 
document, with  the wording as proposed.  
17.2  Canada  
17.3.  As a cosponsor of this proposal, Canada supports the recommendations.  
18  REGIONALIZATION  
18.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 9.15 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ The Committee recognizes the importance of regionalization 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 o n Expedited 
Process (Section IV).  
▪ With a view to increasing transparency, Members are encouraged to share: their 
experiences 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 Committee 's agenda item for regionalization, Members are encouraged to share 
experiences on: securing another Member 's recognition of regiona l 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 activiti es 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 an d 
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.  
18.1  Canada  
18.2.  Canada supports the recommendations in the  draft report of the Fifth Review.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 22 - 
 
 
  18.2  Peru  
18.3.  Regarding the draft Report of the Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ), Peru would like to submit the following proposal for the first 
bullet for point 9.15 ( the recommendations contained in the regionalization subheading) to include 
"and processed products ," to read as following:  
▪ The Committee recognizes the importance of regionalization to safe trade in agricultural 
products and processed 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.  
18.3  Chinese Taipei  
18.4.  Our comments on the draft Report of the 5th Review  are in relation to the recommendation 
(point 3) on regionalization  in paragraph 9.15 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 : 
▪ "With a view to increasing transparency, Members are encouraged to share: their 
experiences in developing and strengthening their frameworks for regionalization; and 
information on their procedures and processes related to regionalizat ion, including on how 
another Member may request recognition of pest - or disease -free areas."  
18.5.  Based on data protection as well as securing another Member 's rights, it is not suggested for 
Members to share another Member 's information on requesting recognit ion of pest - or disease -free 
areas. Thus, we suggest to delete "including on how another Member may request recognition of 
pest- or disease -free areas. " 
18.4  United Kingdom  
18.6.  The United Kingdom recommends the Committee to consider compartmentalisation in 
parallel . 
19  ROLE OF CODEX, IPPC AND OIE IN ADDRESSIN G SPECIFIC TRADE CON CERNS  
19.1.  Recommendations  (Paragraph 10.12 of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2 ): 
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited to provide information on relevant 
standards, guidelines and recommendations in the SPS Committee meetings.  
▪ The Committee may continue to consider th e role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in addressing 
specific trade concerns.  
19.1  Argentina  
19.2.  Argentina considers that the amendment proposed by the United States to the first point of 
recommendation 10.12 changes the content of that recommendation. In this connection, the original 
recommendation was addressed to the C odex, IPPC and OIE, which were invited to provide 
information on their standards in SPS Committee meetings.  
19.3.  If the amendments suggested by the United States were to be implemented, the 
recommend ation would be addressed to the Members of the Committee, who would be encouraged 
to hold consultations within the framework of these standard setting bodies to obtain advice and 
guidance when a specific trade concern arises with respect to the standards o f these bodies.  
19.4.  Given the above, it would be advisable to keep the original wording of the first 
recommendation, which does not preclude the possible inclusion of the United States' proposal as 
an additional recommendation.  
19.2  Canada  
19.5.  Canada supports the recom mendations as stated in the draft  Report  of the Fifth Review.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 23 - 
 
 
  19.6.  However, Canada has additional revisions (in italics) for the first recommendation as revised 
by the United States in G/SPS/W/323 :  
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited  Committee encourages Members  to 
provide information on  consult with the ir relevant ISSB experts  for advice and counsel  
when a specific trade concern arises regarding one of the ISSB's  relevant  standards, 
guidelines and or recommendations in the SPS Committee meetings . 
 
19.7.  Canada considers t hat this recommendation should be related to Members seeking advice 
from their domestic ISSB experts in advance of the SPS Committee rather than seeking advice from 
the ISSBs themselves.  
19.3  India  
19.8.  We note that Article 12.6 of the SPS Agreement states:  
"The Co mmittee may, on the basis of an initiative from one of the Members, through 
appropriate channels invite the relevant international organizations or their subsidiary bodies 
to examine specific matters with respect to a particular standard, guideline or 
recommendation, including the basis of explanations for non -use given according to 
paragraph  4." 
19.9.  We would prefer replacing the term "addressing specific trade concerns" in the second 
recommendation, with "with respect to specific trade concerns". This would en sure that the process 
in the Committee with respect to the STCs, remains Member -driven.  
19.4  United Kingdom  
19.10.   The U nited Kingdom  suggests this alternative phrasing  for the first recommendation : 
▪ The Committee encourages Members to consult with the relevant ISSB fo r advice and 
counsel when a specific trade concern arises regarding one of the ISSB 's standards, 
guidelines or recommendations.  
19.11.   The U nited Kingdom  suggests this alternative phrasing  for the second recommendation : 
▪ The Committee may continue to consider the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE with respect to 
specific trade concerns.  
19.5  United States26 
19.12.   The revised recommendations from the United States,  as indicated in G/SPS/W/323 , are as 
follows:  
▪ The International Standard Setting Bodies are invited Committee encourages Members to  
provide information on consult with the relevant ISSB for advice and counsel when a specific  
trade concern arises regarding one of the ISSB's  standards, guidelines andor 
recommen dations in the SPS Committee meetings . 
▪ The Committee may continue to consider the role of Codex, IPPC and OIE in addressing with 
respect to specific trade concerns.  
19.13.   Comments from the United States on its suggested edit in the second recommendation on 
the ro le of Codex, IPPC and OIE in relation to the revised text "  in addressing with respect to …": 
a. Current phrasing presumes they have a role in "addressing" the concerns. That would 
misunderstand the permissible role of ISSBs.  
 
26 The United States also submitted its comments on the recommendations in G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  as a 
separate document  G/SPS/W/323 . G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 24 - 
 
 
  20  GENERAL COMMENTS  
20.1  Argentina  
20.1.  Argentin a thanks the Secretariat for preparing the documents for the Fifth Review of the SPS 
Agreement, which reflect the discussions held so far. We also thank the United States for the 
comments that they submitted, which are broadly shared.  
20.2.  However, it draws att ention to its comments  above . 
20.2  European Union  
20.3.  Regarding G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  and G/SPS/W/313/ Rev.2/Add.1 , we have no further 
comments on the text.  
20.3  Turkey  
20.4.  As the SPS working group of Turkey, we would like to inform you that we have no comments 
on the documents.  
SECTION 3 – MEMBERS' COMMENTS  ON PART B OF THE REVISED DRAFT RE PORT OF THE 
FIFTH REVIEW  (FACTUAL SECTION,  G/SPS/W/313/REV.2 /ADD. 1)  
21  GENERAL COMMENTS  
21.1  Canada  
21.1.  As a general comment to improve clarity, Canada suggests rather than just stating the year 
of Member/Observer/Secretariat interventions/statements to specify in footnotes the specific 
meeting(s) and associated Committee report(s), considering that there are three Committee 
meetings per year. This will allow interested readers to easily identify and review the relevant 
Committee reports for further detail on the related discussi ons. Canada has highlighted throughout 
the report , points w here this further specificity could be provided.  
21.2.  In relation to the following paragraphs of G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 , Canada suggests to 
specify when the specific meetings  were held  and associated Committee r eports (or 
proposal/document) in a footnote. This will allow interested readers to review the relevant 
Committee reports for further detail:  
a. Paragraphs 3.3, 3.6, 4.2 , 6.2-6.6, 6.10, 10.3 -10.9, 12.1, 12.4, 12.6, 12.15, 12.17 -12.21, 
12.23, 12.29 -12.32, 12.36 , 12.39, 12.41, 12.43, 12.44, 12.46, 12.48, 12.50, 13.1, 14.4, 
14.10, 14.15, 14.16, 15.3, 15.6 -15.12, 16.4, 17.3 -17.5, 17.7, 17.24, 18.3 -18.8, 18.12, 
19.9 and 19.35.27 
21.3.  In relation to footnote 12 (paragraph 3.4), Canada suggests to also note that the webcast  of 
the thematic session is available online : 
a. Footnote 12: "The programme is available circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1704/Rev.1 , based on  the proposal submitted by Canada in document 
G/SPS/W/310 . The presentations and webcast of the thematic session  are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop05112019_e.htm."  
21.4.  In relation to paragraph 4.1, Canada suggests the following revision to improve clarity:  
a. "During SPS Committee meetings , Tthe standard -setting observer organizations pro vide 
relevant information on any work related to the SPS Agreement under the agenda item on 
"Information Sharing". Relevant documents are listed in Appendix C."  
 
27 Canada provided in its  comments, the specific placement of the footnote in each of these paragraphs.  G/SPS/W/324/Rev.1  
 
- 25 - 
 
 
  21.5.  In relation to paragraph 7.2, Canada suggests the following revision to improve clarity:  
a. "In th e 2017 Thematic Workshop on Transparency,28 organized by the Secretariat, one 
particular session focused on national experiences and best practices in public 
consultations. This session highlighted relevant international work on models and 
mechanisms for pu blic consultation in when developing  SPS regulations  rulemaking , with 
speakers from the OECD, the World Bank and Malaysia, which provided both a national 
and an APEC perspective. One key recommendation was to find ways to align domestic 
consultation proces ses with those required by the WTO in order to maximize the benefits 
of comments received from abroad. Having a single, unified website or portal was also 
highlighted as being useful in conducting and managing a consultative process."  
21.6.  In relation to paragr aph 10.9,  Canada suggests the following revision:  
a. "In 2019, the United Stated raised a new issue regarding the Codex task force on 
antimicrobial resistance. Also in 2019, tThe following previously raised issues were 
discussed again: (i) EU concerns regarding ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE 
international standard; (ii) EU and US concerns regarding HPAI restrictions not consistent 
with the OIE international standard;  (iii) US concerns regarding BSE restrictions not 
consistent with the OIE international standard; and (iv) US concerns regarding the use of 
the Codex international standard on glyphosate."  
21.7.  In relation to paragraph s 11.2 and 11.3, Canada suggests the follo wing revision if requests 
for observer status will be considered as part of the June 2020 meeting.  
a. "…March 2020  next Committee meeting."  
21.8.  In relation to  the reference in  paragraph 12.32  to "the new Regulation on Veterinary Medicinal 
Products ", Canada sugges ts that footnote 56 be related to this section of the report, since the STC 
is specific to the European Union 's measure.  
21.9.  In relation to paragraph 19.31,  please revise, Canada was not a presenter at this thematic 
session:  
a. "… The thematic session also benefitted from presentations from Chile, the European 
Union, and the United States and Canada ." 
21.2  European Union  
21.10.   Regarding G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2  and G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1 , we have no further 
comments on the text. We understand the temporal scope of the report is  2014-2019. We would be 
interested in the factual report including a reference to EU GEN document on Technical Assistance 
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.5). Although circulated prior to the meeting of March, the report covers the 
period 2017 -2018.  
21.3  Turkey  
21.11.   As the SPS w orking group of Turkey, we would like to inform you that we have no comments 
on the documents.  
21.4  United States  
21.12.   Please refer to the comments  from the United States  on G/SPS/W/313/Rev.2/Add.1  in 
document G/SPS/W/ 326. 
 
__________  
 
28 See section 19.5 for additional information on the Thematic Workshop on Transparency.