G/SPS/W/276  
 
18 March 2014  
(14-1707)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
 REPORT OF THE CO-STEWARDS OF THE PRIVATE STANDARDS E-WORKING GROUP 
ON ACTION 1 (G/SPS/55) 
SUBMISSION BY THE CO-STEWARDS OF THE E-WORKING GROUP 
The following communication, received on 12 March 2014, is being circulated at the request of 
China and New Zealand in their capacity as co -stewards of the e-Working Group on private 
standards. 
 
_______________ 
  
1.  The SPS Committee adopted five actions regarding SPS-related private standards at its 
meeting of 30-31 March 2011 (G/SPS/55). Endorsem ent of these actions was without prejudice to 
the views of Members regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
2.  In adopting action 1, Members agreed to de velop a working definition of SPS-related private 
standards ("The SPS Committee should develop a working definition of SPS-related private standards and limit any discussions to these"). 
3.  Following the informal and formal meetings of the October 2013 SPS Committee, Members 
agreed to set up an "electronic working grou p" (e-WG), composed of  Members who submitted 
specific and concrete proposals or comments on the joint definition tabled by China and New Zealand (G/SPS/W/272) to the Secretariat by 8 November. It was agreed that China and 
New Zealand would act as "co-stewards" and take the lead in developing a compromise working 
definition of SPS-related private standards. The basis for this work was G/SPS/W/272. Any 
compromise language for a working definition of SPS-related private standards would have to be 
agreed by the SPS Committee. The co-stewards functioned in a private capacity and not as 
representatives of their government, and strove for transparency, openness and inclusiveness in the process. 
4.  By 8 November 2013, comments were received by the Secretariat from 11 Members – 
Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Singapore and the United States. 
5.  On 5 December 2013, the e-WG members were sent an e-mail from the co-stewards attaching: 
a. A compilation of the comments receiv ed from e-WG members (by 8 November); 
b. The joint China/New Zealand proposed definition of an SPS-related private standard 
(G/SPS/W/272); 
c. A table giving the various elements of the definition to be completed by the e-WG 
members; 
d. A list of the e-WG participants; and 
e. The working procedures. 
6.  Members of the e-WG reviewed the compila tion of comments and suggested by 22 January 
2014, how each element of the definition would best  be addressed taking into account the other e-
WG members' comments. It was emphasised that the group was developing a working definition, 
not a legal definition, and that such a definition would apply to SPS-related private standards, but 
not interpret the SPS Agreement or any of its words or provisions. G/SPS/W/276 
 
- 2 - 
 
  7.  On 11 February 2014, the co-stewards sent to the e-WG a summary of all the comments 
received from the e-WG with further comments and recommendations for consideration. Members were requested to be very open in their consideration of the proposals that had been made by the other members of the e-WG, and very explicit and clear in their reasoning when submitting further 
comments/proposals. A deadline of 27 February  2014 was agreed for receiving comments. 
8.  While progress was made on resolving differences in some elements of the definition, 
consensus was not reached on language for a work ing definition. The co-stewards have consulted 
and provide the following suggested language on their own responsibility for consideration at the 
March 2014 SPS Committee meeting: 
"An SPS-related private standard is a written requirement or a set 
of written requirements of a no n-governmental entity which are 
related to food safety, animal or plant life or health and for 
common and repeated use." 
(Optional footnote : "This working definition or any part of it shall be 
without prejudice to the rights and obligations of Members under the WTO 
Agreement on the Application of Sani tary and Phytosanitary Measures or 
the views of Members on the scope of this Agreement.") 
9.  The rationale for the elements of this working definition includes the following: 
a. a set of requirements : There was general agreement among the e-WG to include the 
concepts of "written" requirements, and that it could be a requirement or a set of 
requirements. Some Members also considered "for common and repeated use" should be 
incorporated in the working definition, while others noted concern about possible 
redundancy or lack of clarity with this term. Taking into consideration the definition of a 
"standard" contained in Annex 1 of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the co-stewards recommend the language: " a written requirement or a set of written 
requirements for common and repeated use ". 
b. of a non-governmental entity : This was probably the element of the definition where 
there was the most diverse views expressed. An alternative proposal was made that the 
requirement "… is not applied under the exer cise of governmental authority". However, 
the co-stewards make the following points in support of inclusion of the term " non-
governmental entity ": 
i. the term is generic, not specific to the SPS Agreement; and the ownership approach 
(by using "of") can help avoid the confusion of "private standards" with "official standards"; 
ii. "non-governmental entity" is the term used in the SPS Committee's Decision 
G/SPS/55; and 
iii. A working definition does not entail any legal interpretation as to whether or not 
private standards are covered by the terms of the SPS Agreement. 
c. which are related to food safety, animal or plant life or health : There was a suggestion 
to replace "related to" with "for the purposes of" however the co-stewards consider this 
could easily be confused with the role of th e ISSBs. Furthermore, "for the purposes of" 
means that the standard is imposed primarily in order to achieve that particular 
objective and some Members question whether the primary objective of a private standard is genuinely food safety. It was hence suggested to go with " related to " which 
is a broader term to reflect the fact that the standard has some link to food safety, but 
this is not necessarily its primary objective. 
d. Footnote : in general the e-WG was in agreement or  could be flexible with the use of a 
footnote. An accompanying explanatory document was also proposed by one member of 
the e-WG. The co-stewards noted the comments by the WTO Legal Affairs Division with 
regard to the legal implications of the China/New Zealand joint proposal and its 
accompanying footnote (G/SPS/W/272), and would like to propose a revised optional 
footnote for consideration by the Committee: 
"This working definition or any part of it shall be without prejudice to the 
rights and obligations of Members under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures or the views of 
Members on the scope of this Agreement." 
 
__________