G/SPS/GEN/1401  
 
19 March 2015  
(15-1588)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
 RISK ASSESSMENT: POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS FOR CONSIDERATION 
SUBMISSION BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
The following communication, received on 18 March 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States of America. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1.  The United States notes with appreciation the extensive participation of delegates, sponsored participants from capitals and non-governmental experts, as well as the depth and quality of 
engagement in the Committee, at the Committ ee's Workshop on Risk Analysis held on 
13-14 October 2014. We are committed to support the Committee's work to strengthen the implementation of the obligations of the SPS Agr eement related to risk assessment. We recall the 
key outcomes summarized by the participants in Session 8, particularly those related to the 
challenges that remain for Members in the risk analysis area, and take this opportunity to present the several proposals for further action by the Committee to address those challenges. These 
proposals focus on three key challenges identifi ed by Members at the Workshop, and for which 
they would like to see further action. 
2.  First, many Members cited the need to improve sharing of information related to risk 
assessments. In particular, some Members noted they would welcome access to other Members' 
completed risk assessments as well as the data used to develop those risk assessments. Such 
access might contribute to the timely completion of risk analysis documents and facilitate safe trade in agricultural products. With that aim, the United States would like to encourage the 
Committee to explore ways to facilitate greater sharing of information related to risk assessments. 
We note Members' obligation under Annex B paragraph 3(c) to provide inter alia  information 
related to risk assessment procedures in response  to a "reasonable" request by another Member. 
We wonder whether it would be useful for th e Committee to acknowledge and elaborate on the 
role this obligation could play in improving the exchange of information on risk assessments as a means to address resource and capacity challenges, as well as data sourcing issues. We are interested in other Members' views. 
3.  Second, several Members noted they would appreciate assistance from other Members in 
patching gaps in their capacity to perform risk analyses. This partly pertains to the first issue outlined above on the need for a mechanism to share information about completed risk analysis 
documents as well as the data used to complete them. It does, however, extend beyond that to 
include additional concerns, such as the need for expertise on optimal methodology for performing a given risk analysis, how to determine whether the available information is sufficient to complete 
a risk analysis, and how to ensure risk management decisions are appropriately matched to the 
outcomes of a given risk analysis. 
4.  To help Members fill any gaps in their domest ic capacity to perform risk analyses, the United 
States asks other Members to consider whether a mentoring program could be a worthwhile 
initiative for the Committee to undertake. Such an initiative could involve direct Member to 
Member requests for assistance (whereby a Member with experience in a given aspect of risk assessment could assist another Member seeking to gain from that experience) or through 
Secretariat-facilitated mentoring match making of requests for assistance and experienced 
candidates for providing that assistance. A mentoring program in the Committee could also involve the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies (ISSBs). Requests could be made to them to report to G/SPS/GEN/1401 
 
- 2 - 
 
  the Committee on specific areas of interest by Members, including specific activities undertaken by 
the ISSBs related to risk analysis. As one Member noted during the workshop, the ISSBs are well-positioned to provide training on risk analysis techniques. We are open to other Members' views on how the Committee might best facilitate such exchanges. 
5.  Third, we note there was broad interest in a deeper exploration of the topic of risk 
communication, particularly in sharing Members' experiences and real-life examples where risk 
communication strategies were developed and depl oyed. As noted at the Workshop, the scientific 
literature on risk communication in the SPS context is evolving and many Members are still 
developing and refining their approaches. Given the desire among Members to have more information and discussion on risk communication, we propose that the Committee hold an informal session prior to the July 2015 Committ ee meeting at which Members share practical 
experiences and lessons learned related to risk communication strategies employed in response to 
an SPS issue. Goals of the discussion might include tailoring risk communication strategies to specific SPS objectives; projecting and instilling confidence in science-based risk analysis as a 
basis for making risk management decisions; and identifying barriers to reaching given audiences 
that must be overcome in implementing a successful communication strategy. Such a discussion could provide useful information to Members as well as help generate ideas on how the Committee 
can continue work in this area initiated by the Workshop. We welcome other Members' views on 
these proposals to deepen the Committee's work on risk communication. 
6.  Lastly, we note the work being done in FAO, WHO, Codex, OIE and IPPC, on risk assessment, 
risk management and risk communication and urge the Committee to collaborate efforts with 
these organizations as we move forward. 
 
__________