G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
15 June 2020 
(20-4215) Page: 1/48 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
REVIEW OF T HE OPERATION AND IMP LEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMIT TEE – PART B  
Note by the Secretariat1 
Addendum  
The draft Report of the Fifth Review is comprised of two sections: (i) Part A : Proposals submitted 
under the Fifth Review – which contains the list of the proposals submitted under the Fifth Review, 
as well as information on the discussions and thematic sessions that have taken place on the various 
topics. In addition, this section  contains information on the areas identified for further work by the 
SPS Committee, including any recommendations; and (ii) Part B : Factual report – which is based 
on the draft background document, initially circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1612  on 4 May 2018. 
The present  document contains Part B o f the Report; Part A can be found in document 
G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3 .  
 
This factual part reflects the work of the SPS Committee from January 2014 until December 2019, 
unless stated otherwise.2  
 
Information presented in this document, particularly in sections 8 and 1 9, has been retrieved from 
the SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS: http://spsims.wto.org ) and from Documents 
on Line ( https://docs.wto.org/ ). The categories of level of development and the geographical 
groupings of Members are based on the WTO IDB reference database.3 
 
Appendices A to D provide a list of documents from January 2014 to December 2019 and a re 
accessible via the following weblink:  
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/tables_e/G_SPS_W_313_Appendix_A -D.xlsx .  
 
Specifically, Appendix A provide s a list of Secretariat background documents and other meeting 
documents. Appendix B provides a list of documents submitted by Members that are relevant to the 
various issues raised in this background document. Appendix C similarly provides a list of docum ents 
submitted by observer organizations. Appendix  D provides information about SPS -related dispute 
settlement activities.  
 
 
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 This document includes information on technical assistance provided by Memb ers in GEN documents 
submitted up to March 2020 , for technical assistance undertaken within the period of Review (i.e. 2014 -2019).  
3 The tariff online facility, which provides access to the WTO's Integrated Data Base (IDB) is available 
at: https://tao.wto.org . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents  
             Page 
PART B – FACTUAL REP ORT ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
1  CATALOGUE OF INSTRU MENTS  ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
2  CONSISTENCY (ARTICL E 5.5)  ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
3  CONTROL, INSPECTION  AND APPROVAL PROCED URES (ARTICLE 8 AND ANNEX C)  ..... 5 
4  COOPERATION WITH TH E CODEX, IPPC AND OI E ................................ .........................  6 
5  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 
6  EQUIVALENCE (ARTICL E 4) ................................ ................................ ..........................  8 
7  GOOD REGULATORY PRA CTICE  ................................ ................................ .....................  9 
8  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE A GREEMENT – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  .......................  9 
9  IMPLEMENTATION OF T HE AGREEMENT – USE O F AD HOC CONSULTATIO NS .............  12 
10  MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STA NDARDS (ARTICLES 3.5   
AND 12.4)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  13 
11  OBSERVER STATUS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 14 
11.1  New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14 
11.2  Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .15 
12  OTHER SUBSTANTIVE D ISCUSSIONS ................................ ................................ ........  15 
12.1  Maximum residue limits (MRLs) for plant protection products  ................................ .......... 15 
12.2  Fall armyworm (FAW)  ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 
12.3  Antimicrobial resistance (AMR)  ................................ ................................ .................... 20 
12.4  Gene editing and biotechnology  ................................ ................................ ................... 22 
12.5  Low-Level Presence (LLP)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 22 
13  PROCEDURAL ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...............................  23 
13.1  Brazil's proposal on the functioning of the SPS Committee (G/SPS/W/319/Rev.2)  .............. 23 
13.2  Annotated agenda ................................ ................................ ................................ ......24 
13.3  Agenda item on cross -cutting issues  ................................ ................................ ............ 24 
14  REGIONALIZATION (AR TICLE 6)  ................................ ................................ ..............  24 
15  RISK ANALYSIS: RISK  ASSESSMENT (ART. 5) , RISK MANAGEMENT AN D 
COMMUNICATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  27 
16  SPECIAL AND DIFFERE NTIAL TREATMENT (ART ICLE 10)  ................................ .........  29 
17  SPS-RELATED PRIVATE  STANDARDS  ................................ ................................ ........  30 
17.1  Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 30 
17.2  Action 1 - Definition  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...30 
17.3  Actions 2 to 5  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 31 
17.4  Other suggested actions  ................................ ................................ ............................. 33 
17.5  Other activities in relation to private standards  ................................ .............................. 33 
18  TECHNICAL ASSISTANC E AND TRAINING ACTIV ITIES (ARTICLE 9)  .........................  35 
18.1  Technical assistance  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...35 
18.2  Technical assistance statistics  ................................ ................................ ..................... 37 
18.3  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  ................................ ................... 38 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  19  TRANSPARENCY (ARTIC LE 7 AND ANNEX B)  ................................ ............................  41 
19.1  Online systems  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 41 
19.2  E-mail lists  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 42 
19.3  "Technical Revision" of the Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3)  .......42 
19.4  Update on implementation of transparency provisions  ................................ .................... 43 
19.5  Proposals on transparency  ................................ ................................ .......................... 44 
APPENDIX  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  48 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  PART B – FACTUAL REP ORT 
1  CATALOGUE OF INSTRUM ENTS  
1.1.  In the context of the Fourth Review, Canada proposed that the Committee develop a "Catalogue 
of Instruments Available to th e WTO Members to manage SPS issues"4, noting that the timely use 
of these tools could help Members avoid, manage or escalate issues. The proposed Catalogue would 
include all mechanisms relevant to the SPS Agreement framework; for instance, the right to pro vide 
comments on notifications and to discuss them, the targeted or strategic use of the STC agenda 
item, and the use of the IPPC or OIE dispute settlement procedures.  
1.2.  Many Members welcomed the proposal and highlighted the usefulness of developing a 
compen dium of all the actions available. It was proposed that the Secretariat collaborate with 
Canada on preparing a draft of the Catalogue, for subsequent comments by other Members. 
The draft Catalogue, jointly submitted by Canada and Kenya, was circulated as G/SPS/W/279 , on 
18 June 2014. The document was discussed at Committee meetings in 2014, and the proponents 
revised it in response to comments and suggestions from Me mbers.  
1.3.  In March 2015, Canada presented the second revision5 of its joint proposal with Kenya. Some 
Members requested clarification about the legal status of the document, and the Secretariat 
explained that it would become one of the reference documents adopted by the Committee. At the 
request of the Chair person, the Secretariat prepared language for a draft paragraph clarifying the 
legal status of the document, as adapted from the latest decision adopted by the Committee, which 
was the Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of Specific Sanita ry or Phytosanitary 
Issues among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2 ( G/SPS/61 ).6 At Committee meetings in 
2015-2017, Members continued discussing this disclaimer language, based on further proposals from 
Members and from Chairpersons.  
1.4.  In 2017, many Members indicated that they could accept a  "soft" disclaimer, although one 
Member had preferred a more far -reaching version. The Committee decided to try a new approach, 
combining an introductory paragraph clarifying the intended use of the Catalogue with a soft 
disclaimer.7 Members were asked to consult with their capitals. In November 2017, th e Chairperson 
noted that one Member had submitted comments indicating that systemic concerns regarding the 
inclusion of disclaimers in Committee documents persisted. One Member suggested the organization 
of an exchange with legal experts from the Secretariat to explain the interpretation of Committee 
decisions and disclaimers. This suggestion was supported by one of the authors of the document, 
who also thought it could be helpful.8 
1.5.  The Committee adopted the Catalogue of Instruments to Manage SPS Issues in the March 2018 
SPS Committee meeting. Members agreed to include disclaimer language proposed by the 
Chairperson in July 2017, which combine d an introductory paragraph describing the intended uses 
of the Cata logue with a "soft" disclaimer. Consensus became possible after Brazil and Mexico, who 
had previously raised objections to the inclusion of a disclaimer, accepted the Chairperson's proposed 
disclaimer, in the spirit of advancing the work of the Committee. Both Members requested that their 
systemic concerns regarding the use of disclaimers in Committee documents be reflected in the 
summary report of the meeting. The document was subsequently circulated as G/SPS/63 , with the 
introductory language in  RD/SPS/16 .  
1.6.  Within the context of the Fifth Review discussions on South Africa's propos al regarding the role 
of the Codex, OIE and IPPC in addressing STCs,9 Canada reminded Members of the relevant 
 
4 G/SPS/W/271 . 
5 G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2 . 
6 The language circulated by the Secretariat was: "This catalogue of instruments is intended as a 
reference document to help Members address and manage SPS issues. It is without prejudice to the rights and 
obligations of Members under the SPS Agreement or any o ther WTO agreement and shall not constitute a 
legally binding agreement."  
7 The new language, as well as other proposals, were circulated in room document RD/SPS/16 . 
8 Prior to discussions in the formal meeting of the March 2018 SPS Committee, a legal expert from the 
Secretariat briefed the Co mmittee on the use of Committee decisions with or without disclaimers in dispute 
settlement.  
9 G/SPS/W/304  and G/SPS/W/304/Add.1 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  information available in the Catalogue of Instruments G/SPS/63 . Members also discussed ways to 
encourage the use of this document, such as including a reference to G/SPS/63  in the airgram.10 
2  CONSISTENCY (ARTICLE  5.5) 
2.1.  Article 5. 5 required the Committee to develop guidelines to further the practical implementation 
of that provision. The Committee adopted such guidelines ( G/SPS/15 ) in July  2000, and 
subsequently agreed to review them as part of the periodic review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement. To date no Member has suggested a need to modify these 
guidelines. Although there is no standing agenda item regarding Article 5.5, there is an opportunity 
for Members to provide information regarding their experiences in this regard under the Agenda 
Item "Information from Members on Relevant Activities".  
3  CONTROL, INSPECTION AND APPROVAL PROCEDU RES (A RTICLE 8 AND ANNEX C ) 
3.1.  In July 2018, a Thematic Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures 
(Annex  C)11 was held. The WTO Global Trust Fund had sponsored 32 participants selected from 
developing and least -developed countries and the WTO funded th e participation of four external 
speakers. The main objective of the workshop was to discuss and share experiences on 
developments, challenges and practices in implementing Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement.  The workshop explored the provisions of , and dispute settlement reports regarding,  
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and explained the relationship between the TF and 
SPS Agreements. Representatives from Codex, OIE and IPPC presented an overview of relevant work 
in the three sisters. Presentations by the World Bank, the STDF, and COMESA had depicted 
experiences on the ground, given estimates on SPS -related trade transaction costs, and identified 
win-win opportunities to facilitate safe trade, such as interagency collaboration and incre ased 
transparency. The European Union, the United States, Canada, China, Turkey, Zambia and Belize 
presented their domestic experiences.  
3.2.  E-certification was also addressed in a dedicated session of the workshop. First, the IPPC 
presented its ePhyto projec t, initially funded by the STDF, to facilitate the electronic exchange of 
phytosanitary certificates through the creation of a web -based global system. Then UNCTAD 
presented Rwanda's case in establishing an e -Portal for facilitating the issuance of SPS cer tificates. 
Finally, the OIE and Codex provided an update on their nascent work in the field of electronic 
certification, and Brazil, the European Union and the United States had shared their national 
experiences in implementing e -certification systems. The  workshop ended with a roundtable, in 
which representatives from the World Bank, UNCTAD, the International Trade Centre, the World 
Customs Organization, and the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility had discussed their 
ongoing capacity building progr ammes. The Secretariat was requested to update the document 
drafted in 2014 on the relationship between the Trade Facilitation and SPS Agreements 
(RD/SPS/3/Rev.1).12 
3.3.  In 2018, the IPPC announced that the ePhyto Hub was functioning and that the IPPC Generic 
National System (GeNS) was being improved. The entire ePhyto Solution would be functioning by 
early 2019. Besides, the IPPC referred to an agreement signed with WCO to promote cooperation 
on border controls and single window in the areas of ePhyto, eCommerc e and Sea Containers. 
The United States expressed interest in and support for the ePhyto project on electronic 
phytosanitary certification, highlighted some potential benefits, explained its financial and technical 
contributions to the project and encourag ed IPPC members to support the ePhyto project. Ecuador 
was one of the pilot countries; Nigeria queried whether African countries had been involved in the 
pilot project. The  IPPC informed that regional workshops on ePhyto would be held in 2018 in Latin 
Amer ica as well as in Africa and in the Near East region.  
 
10 For the November 2019  Committee meeting, both the reminder and the convening airgrams 
(WTO/AIR/SPS/29  and WTO/AIR/SPS/30 ) include a paragraph encouraging Members to consult the Catalogue 
of Instruments (G/SPS/63), which lists resources available to members to manage SPS issues.  
11 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1613/Rev.2  and the report was circulated as 
G/SPS/R/91 . Presentations from the thematic session are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop910718_e.htm . 
12 The updated document was circulated as RD/SPS/3/Rev.2  and RD/SPS/3/Rev.2/C orr.1. 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.4.  In November 2019, a Thematic Session on Approval Procedures13 was held, as agreed by the 
SPS Committee in March 2019, on the basis of a proposal submitted by Canada. Building upon the 
July 2018 Workshop  on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures, the purpose of the thematic 
session was to explore concepts within Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, as they related 
to approval procedures, including undue delays, transparency and information req uirements. 
The session focused on pre -market approvals, approval of biotech products, domestic regulations 
and work of international standard -setting bodies, among other topics. First, the Secretariat provided 
a comprehensive overview of Article 8 and Anne x C, and relevant WTO disputes, underlining the 
importance of approval procedures by looking at an estimated number of related STCs and examples 
of discussions in the SPS Committee. In Session 2, Codex presented on relevant guidance on import 
and export re quirements including safety assessments of food derived from biotechnology.  
3.5.  Several speakers shared experiences as importing and exporting Members in relation to 
approval procedures, followed by a discussion on costs and challenges related to trade and 
innovation caused by asynchronous approval processes  globally . An interesting overview of  the 
linkages between the WTO Trade  Facilitation Agreement and the disciplines on approval procedures 
was also provided. Some  key takeaways included the need for increased cooperation and capacity 
building for strengthening the implementation of cost -effective approval procedures. Finally, a 
roundtable discussion concluded the thematic session by posing overarching questions to stimulate 
an exchange of ideas on pos sible ways to address some of the challenges identified, and explore 
possible future work.  
3.6.  In 2019, the Committee also discussed a proposal for the Committee to continue its work on 
approval procedures through the establishment of an electronic working gro up open to the 
participation of all Members and Observer s.14  
3.7.  Also i n 2019, the IPPC referred to its work on the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) tool, 
and updated Members on the completion of its work on ePhyto, with support of STDF, as well as the 
Generic ePhyto National System (GENS).  
4  COOPERATION WITH THE  CODEX, OIE AND IPPC  
4.1.  During the SPS Committee meetings, t he standard -setting observer organizations provide 
relevant information on any work related to the SPS Agreement under the agenda item on 
"Information Sharing". Relevant documents are listed in Appendix C.  
4.2.  In addition, the IPPC urged Members in 2018 to support Finland's proposal to declare 2020 as 
the International Year of Plant Health (IYPH) at the UN  General Assembly in September 2018. The 
European Union reiterated its support and urged Members to support the proposal. The IPPC looked 
forward to the endorsement of the IPPC Strategic Framework for 2020 -2030, before its official 
adoption at the Ministerial Commission meeting to be held in the 2020 IYPH. In 2019, the UN General 
Assembly adopted the 2020 IYPH. The European Union stressed the importance of the IYPH 2020 
and Global Plant Health Conference. D uring the Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm,15 suggestions 
were made to build on the exchanges as a contribution to IPPC's 2020 IYPH.  
4.3.  Codex, OIE and IPPC also participated in various thematic sessions and workshops held during 
the Review period.  
5  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT  
5.1.  Article 11 of the SPS Agreement indicates that the Dispute Settlement Understanding applies 
to SPS disputes, and provides for the consultation of experts when a dispute involves scientific or 
technical issues. As of December 2019, 593 disputes had formally  been raised under the WTO's 
dispute settlement system. Of these, 49 alleged violation of the SPS Agreement, and the 
 
13 The programme is available 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.w to.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop05112019_e.htm . 
14 G/SPS/W/321 . See the section on control, inspection and approval procedures (Annex C) in Part A of 
the Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev. 3), which provides additional details on the 
substance of the submitted proposal.  
15 See section 12.2 of this Report for additional information on the Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm, 
and for more general discussions on fall armyworm in the SPS Committee.  
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  SPS Agreement was relevant also in two other disputes. 28 resulted in the establishment of a dispute 
settlement panel. These panels were es tablished to look at 19 different SPS issues, listed below. 
Subsequent to the Fourth Review, action has occurred in DS506, DS524, DS525, DS532, DS540, 
DS589 and in the last four disputes in the following list, as further detailed in Appendix D:16 
1. Canada and  the United States' complaint against Australia's measures affecting the 
importation of salmon (DS18 and DS21);  
2. Canada and the United States' complaint against the European Communities' measures 
concerning meat and meat products (ban on meat treated with g rowth -promoting hormones, 
DS26 and DS48);  
3. The United States' complaint against Japan's measures affecting agricultural products 
(requirement to test different fruit varieties with regard to treatment efficacy, DS76);  
4. Ecuador's complaint against Turkey's im port procedures for fresh fruit (DS237);  
5. The United States' complaint against Japan's measures affecting the importation of apples 
(restrictions due to fire blight concerns, DS245);  
6. The Philippines' complaint against Australia's measures affecting the impo rtation of fresh 
fruit and vegetables (270);  
7. The European Communities' complaint against Australia's quarantine procedures (287);  
8. Argentina, Canada and the United States' complaint against EC measures affecting the 
approval and marketing of biotech product s (DS291 -293);  
9. The European Communities' complaint against Canada and the United States regarding their 
continued suspension of obligations relating to the EC -Hormones dispute (DS320);  
10. New Zealand's complaint against Australia's measures affecting the impo rtation of apples 
(restrictions due to concerns related to fire blight and two other plant pests, DS367);  
11. The United States' complaint against the European Communities' measures affecting poultry 
meat and poultry meat products (DS389);  
12. Canada's complaint a gainst Korea's restrictions on bovine meat and meat products (mutually 
agreed solution notified, DS391);  
13. China's complaint against the United States' measures affecting imports of poultry (DS392);  
14. The United States' complaint against India's measures conce rning the importation of certain 
agricultural products (due to concerns about avian influenza; compliance panel proceedings 
on-going, DS430);  
15. Argentina's complaint against the United States' measures affecting the importation of 
animals, meat and other ani mal products (due to concerns about foot -and-mouth disease, 
(DS447);  
16. The European Union's complaint against Russian measures affecting the importation of live 
pigs, pork, pork products and certain other commodities (due to concerns about  African 
Swine Feve r, consultations ongoing in compliance proceedings, DS475);  
17. Brazil's complaint against certain Indonesian measures on the importation of chicken meat 
and chicken products (DS484); and  
18. Japan's complaint against Korea's import bans, testing and certification  requirements for 
radionuclides (DS495).  
19. Mexico's complaint against Costa Rica's measures concerning the importation of fresh 
avocados (DS524).  
 
16 Please note that in four disputes, the pan els (and the Appellate Body) made findings principally under 
the TBT Agreement. These cases concerned Canada's complaint against the European Communities' ban on 
asbestos and products containing asbestos (DS135), Canada and Mexico's complaint against the U nited States' 
country of origin (COOL) labelling requirements (DS384 and DS386), and Indonesia's complaint against the 
United States' ban on clove cigarettes (DS406).  
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  6  EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE  4) 
6.1.  The Committee adopted an initial decision regarding the implementation of Article 4 on 
equivalence in October 2001. This initial decision included a commitment to develop a specific work 
programme to further the implementation of Article 4, which was concluded by the adoption of the 
current version of the equivalence guidelines in July 200417 and the agreement that equiv alence 
would be a standing agenda item for the regular meetings of the Committee.  
6.2.  Under this agenda item, in 2015, Codex informed Members about its new work on guidance for 
the monitoring of the performance of national food con trol systems. Codex noted that the product 
of this work would not replace the equivalence provisions of the SPS Agreement. The final product 
would be available in about two to three years to improve the functioning of national food control 
systems.18 
6.3.  Also i n 2015, Senegal shared its experience in equivalence of procedures for peanut seed 
exports to China, based on the agreement on SPS requirements for peanut exports.19 Senegal 
thanked China, the African Union and SPS standards organizations for supporting thi s equivalence 
initiativ e. China noted that it considered this equivalence agreement with Senegal to be a good 
example of constructive bilateral cooperation. In 2016, Senegal reported that its exports were 
expanding to other markets such as Indonesia, Malay sia and Viet Nam, and confirmed to its new 
trade partners that the same procedures were in place to achieve an appropriate SPS protection 
level with regard to groundnut production in Senegal. Senegal also thanked China for the cooperation 
and the smooth im plementation of their bilateral agreement which was now in its second year.  
6.4.  Also in 2016, Madagascar informed Members about the equivalence arrangements in place with 
regard to fishery products, specifically noting that the regulatory measures applied by i ts competent 
authority (Autorité Sanitaire Halieutique) to products intended for the European market had been 
recognized as equivalent to those provided in the European sanitary regulations. In addition, the 
competent Chinese veterinary authority had also recognized measures applied by the competent 
authority as equivalent to their measures and that a Memorandum of Understanding had been signed 
with China in 2014 that governed shrimp exports to the Chinese market. China thanked both 
Madagascar and Senegal f or their particular comments on cooperation on SPS requirements 
regarding their exports of groundnuts and shrimp to China.  
6.5.  The Secretariat reminded Members that the Committee's decision on equivalence laid out in 
G/SPS/19/Rev.2  encouraged Members to notify the recognition of equivale nce. The Secretariat noted 
that a specific notification format for the recognition of equivalence existed and encouraged Members 
to use it. The Secretariat also highlighted that the importing country recognizing the equivalence of 
a measure, or an aspect t hereof, should be submitting the notification.20  
6.6.  In 2017, Madagascar announced that in December 2016, the South African Plant Protection 
Organization had recognized all phytosanitary measures taken by the Madagascar Plant Protection 
Organization as equival ent. Madagascar acknowledged that the effort to bring its measures into 
conformity had improved the access of Malagasy fresh lychees to the South African market.  
6.7.  In 2018 and 2019, the Committee discussed several proposals on equivalence that were 
submitted under the Fifth Review.21 In addition, in response to one of those proposals, the 
Committee agreed in July 2018 to hold a two -part Thematic Session on Equivalence in October 2018 
and in March 2019.  
6.8.  In October 2018, the first part of the Thematic Session on Equivalence22 was held . The 
Secretariat developed a programme for the workshop based on the proposal by Canada and inputs 
 
17 G/SPS/19/Rev.2 . 
18 The Guidelines CXG 91 -2017, Principles and guidelines for monitoring the performance of national 
food control systems, were adopted in 2017.  
19 G/SPS/GEN/1461 . 
20 In 2019, five new notifications on equivalence were submitted by the United States using the 
corresponding notification template.  
21 G/SPS/W/299 , G/SPS/W/301  and G/SPS/W/302/Rev.1 . See the section on equi valence in Part A of the 
Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev. 3), which provides additional details on the 
substance of the submitted proposals and the subsequent discussions.  
22 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1640/Rev.1 . Presentation s from the thematic 
session are also available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop301018_e.htm . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  from Members. In this first part, t he Secretariat provided an overview of the provisions of the SPS 
Agreement on equivalence  (Article 4), of G/SPS/19/Re v.2, and of related dispute settlement reports. 
The thematic session included a presentation from the Secretariat on equivalence from a TBT 
perspective. Representatives of Codex, OIE and IPPC discussed  the concept of equivalence in their 
respective areas. Discussions covered the need to ensure the consistency of the work being 
undertaken by the standard -setting bodies with the WTO Agreements; the challenges of having a 
common definition of equivalence; the lack of consistency in wording across organizations ; the 
situations in which a systems approach should be used; and the link between recognition of disease -
free areas and equivalence determinations.  
6.9.  In March 2019, the second part of the Thematic Session on Equivalence23, focusing on 
Members' experiences wi th the implementation of equivalence, was held. Members presented 
experiences in the implementation of equivalence to specific SPS measures or groups of 
SPS measures. First, the United States, China, Canada and Peru shared their approaches to 
equivalence i n several areas. Secondly, New Zealand, Canada and Australia focused on systems -
based equivalence. Finally, speakers from COMESA, Imperial College London and Peru explored 
other approaches to equivalence. During the session, the principles of transparency,  engagement 
and mutual trust were highlighted as prerequisites for the effective implementation of equivalence.  
6.10.   In 2019, Senegal informed the Committee of the signing of a bilateral phytosanitary 
agreement granting authorization for groundnut access to Mal aysia, noting that this was a good 
example of recognition of their sanitary and phytosanitary inspection system by a trading partner.  
6.11.   In 2019, five new notifications on equivalence were submitted by the United States using the 
corresponding notification te mplate.  
6.12.   Also in 2019, a joint proposal submitted by Brazil, Kenya, Paraguay and the United States24 
on enabling access to tools and technologies towards safer and more sustainable agriculture through 
regulatory coll aboration, included equivalence as one of  the possible concepts for further Committee 
discussion in connection with fall armyworm (FAW).25 
7  GOOD REGULATORY PRAC TICE  
7.1.  In 2017, the Secretariat held a regional SPS workshop for Latin America (co -organized with 
the Inter -American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture) in Costa Rica, with a focus on good 
regulatory practice.  
7.2.  In the 2017 Thematic Workshop on Transparency26, organized by the Secretariat, one 
particular session focused on nationa l experiences and best practices in public consultat ions. 
This session highlighted relevant international work on models and mechanisms for public 
consultation when developing SPS regulations , with speakers from the OECD, the World Bank and 
Malaysia, which provided both a national and an APEC perspective. O ne key recommendation was 
to find ways to align domestic consultation processes 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 usef ul in conducting and managing a consultative process.  
7.3.  In 2017, the STDF reported on new work on good regulatory practice in the SPS area. 
This information is available in section 18.3.27 
8  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E AGREEMENT – SPECIF IC TRADE CONCERNS  
8.1.  Part of each  Committee meeting is devoted to the consideration of specific trade concerns 
raised by Members. At the March 2000 meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat was requested 
 
23 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/ 1675/Rev .1. Presentations from the thematic 
session are also available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop18032019_e.htm . 
24 G/SPS/W/317 . 
25 G/SPS/W/305 , G/SPS/W/309 , G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1  and G/SPS/W/317 . See the section on fall 
armyworm in Part A of the Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev. 3), which  provides 
additional details on the substance of submitted proposals and the subsequent discussions.  
26 See section 19.5 for additional information on the Thematic Workshop on Transparency.  
27 In July 2019, the OECD -WTO publication "Facilitating Trade through Regulatory Cooperation: The 
Case of the WTO’s TBT/SPS Agreements and Committees" was launched within the context of the Aid for Trade 
Global Review.  
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  to prepare a paper summarizing the specific trade concerns that had been brought to the 
Committee's attention since 1995 and to update this document annually to include new information 
provided by Members. The statistics below are derived from the twentieth revision of 
G/SPS/GEN/204 ,28 and include all issues whi ch have been raised at SPS Committee meetings 
through t o the end of 2019.  
8.2.  Altogether, 469 specific trade concerns were raised between 1995 and the end of 2019.29 
Chart  1 shows the number of new concerns raised each year; 101 new concerns have been raised 
since 2014. Chart 2 categorizes the trade concerns raised since 2014 into food safety, animal health, 
plant health or other concerns. It is important to keep in mind, however, that some issues may 
relate to more than one of these categories. Concerns re lating to zoonoses, for example, may relate 
to measures taken with both animal health and food safety objectives. For the purposes of these 
graphs, a single objective has been designated as the principal concern. Since 2014, 36% of trade 
concerns discussed  raised relate to food safety, 22% relate to plant health, and 15% refer to other 
concerns such as certification requirements or translation. 27% of concerns raised relate to animal 
health and zoonoses.  
Chart 1 – Number of new STCs raised  
 
 
 
28 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.20  was circulated to Members on 5 March 2020.  
29 Information relevant to this section, but which  precedes the period under review, can be found in 
former revisions of document G/SPS/GEN/204 . 
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20192112423
13
102843
29
2131
1016 16
1322
16 1624
1421
14171817G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Chart 2 – Trade concerns between 2014 -2019, by subject  
 
 
8.3.  Developing country Members have been participating actively under this agenda item in the 
SPS Committee meetings. Chart 3 indicates that over the last six years, developing country Members 
have raised 91 issues (on many occas ions more than one Member has raised, supported or 
maintained an  issue) compared to 38 raised by developed country Members and five raised by a 
least-developed country Member. A developing country Member has supported another Member 
raising an issue in 133  cases, compared to 25 for developed country Members and 18 for least -
developed country Members. In 36 issues, the measure was maintained by a developed country 
Member, and in 70 cases it was maintained by a developing country Member. No trade concern 
regarding measures maintained by least -developed country Members has been raised during the 
period. Chart 4 shows the number of new issues raised since 2014 by each category of Member.30  
Chart 3 – Participation by WTO  Members (20 14-2019)  
 
 
 
30 As any individual trade concern can potentially be raised by more than one Member, this explains the 
apparent double -counting shown in Charts 3 and 4 compared with the overall count of the 101 specific trade 
concerns raised since 2014.  
Animal health
27%Food safety
36%Other
15%
Plant health
22%
38
253691133
70
518
0
Members raising the issue Supporting Members Members maintaining the measure
Developed Members Developing Members Least-developed MembersG/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Chart 4 – Number of new issues raised by Members between 2014 and 2019  
 
 
8.4.  Members are regularly invited to report on resolved issues. Chart 5 indicates that 168 trade 
concerns have been reported resolved out of the 469 trade concerns raised over the 25 years 
(i.e. 1995-2019). Of which, 28 issues were reported as resolved between 2014 and 2019.  In 
addition, eight trade concerns were reported as partially solved during the period under review. 
In these instances, trade may have been allowed for selected products or by some of the importing 
Members maintaining the measure in question. No solutions have been reported for the remaining 
267 trade conc erns, although some of these may have been resolved without the Committee being 
made aware of these developments.  
Chart 5 – Resol ution of  trade concerns  (1995 -2019)  
 
 
 
9  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E AGREEMENT – USE OF  AD HOC CONSULTATION S 
9.1.  Article 12.2 states that the Committee "shall encourage and facilitate ad hoc consultations or 
negotiations among Members on specific sanitary or phytosanitary issues". In each of the previous 
411
4 411
417
15
11141618
14
02468101214161820
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Developed Members Developing Members Least-developed Members
267 (57%) 168 (36%)34 (7%)
No solution reported
Solution reported
Partial solution reportedG/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  reviews, the Committee has recognized the usefulness of Article  12.2, and in particular of the good 
offices of the Chairperson, as a means of facilitating the resolution of trade problems.31 
9.2.  Following -up on the Second Review, the Committee began discussing a possible procedure to 
facilitate the use of ad hoc consultati ons and negotiations to resolve SPS issues. After the 
Committee's recommendation in the Third Review to expeditiously conclude this issue, several 
Members submitted proposals for such a procedure.32 Members worked intensively to develop a 
procedure ( G/SPS/W/259  and its revisions) during  2011 to 2013.33 
9.3.  At the SPS Committee meeting in March 2014, India sought clarification on several specific 
issues relating to the procedure outlined in G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7 , which were circulated in document 
RD/SPS/4. The stewards and co -stewards of the electronic working group that had been established 
to facilitate re aching consensus on the draft procedure reviewed the queries submitted by India, and 
provided the requested clarifications in RD/SPS/5  in June 2014.  
9.4.  In July 2014, the Committee adopted th e Recommended Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate 
the Resolution of Specific Sanitary and Phytosanitary Issues among Members in Accordance with 
Article 12.2, with the changes suggested by India, on an ad referendum basis. No  Member raised 
an objection by  the deadline, and the final decision was circulated as G/SPS/61 . 
9.5.  Based on paragraph 4.1 of G/SPS/61 , the Secretariat prepares an annual r eport on the use of 
the procedure.34 Since the adoption of G/SPS/61 , no Member has requested consultations under this 
procedure.  
10  MONITORING THE USE O F INTERNATIONAL STAN DARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 AND 12.4)  
10.1.   Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreeme nt require the Committee to develop a procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines 
and recommendations. The Committee initially adopted a monitoring procedure in 1997, which was 
revised in November 2004.35 In June 2006, the Committee deci ded to extend this procedure 
indefinitely, and to review its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the operation 
and implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.  
10.2.   The monitoring of the use of international standards is a standing item on the agenda of 
regular Committee meetings, and in accordance with the agreed procedure, the Committee has 
produced annual reports relating to the process of monitoring international harmonization.36 
10.3.   In 2014, the IPPC presented information on the Implementation Review and Supporting 
System (IRSS), noting that the system had been widely recognized as a very helpful tool to promote 
and facilitate the IPPC monitoring system.37 Chile reaffirmed the  need to re vise the monitoring 
procedure under Article 12.4 to address the problems of developing countries that find it difficult to 
attend the three sisters' meetings and therefore lack information on the extent to which international 
standards are being applied.  
10.4.   In 2015, several new issues were raised under the monitoring procedure: (i) US concern s on 
the use of the Codex international standard on glyphosate; (ii) Burkina Faso's concern on the lack 
of a Codex standard for imidacloprid in sesame; and (iii) Belize's concerns regarding Members' 
deviations from the use of international standards. One previously raised issue was also discussed 
regarding US concerns on HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard . 
10.5.   In 2016, several previously raised  issues were discussed:  (i) Argentina's concerns regarding 
measures on bovine semen and reproductive material more restrictive than the OIE Standard; 
(ii) Senegal's concerns regarding the application of ISPM 13 on notifications of non -compliance;  
 
31 G/SPS/12 , paragraph 24; G/SPS/36 , paragraphs 87 -88; G/SPS/53 , paragraphs 116 -126; G/SPS/62 , 
paragraphs 11.1 -11.7. 
32 G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4  and JOB/SPS/1 . 
33 Additional information on the Committee's discussions before 2014 can be found in sect ion 11 of the 
Fourth Review Report (G/SPS/62).  
34 These annual reports are contained in documents G/SPS/GEN/1457 , G/SPS/GEN/1513 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1573 , G/SPS/GEN/1642  and G/SPS/GEN/1729 . 
35 G/SPS/11/Rev.1 . 
36 G/SPS/37 , G/SPS/42  and G/SPS/42/Corr./1 , G/SPS/ 45, G/SPS/49 , G/SPS/51  and G/SPS/51/Corr.1 , 
G/SPS/54 , G/SPS/56 , G/SPS/59 , G/SPS/GEN/1332 , G/SPS/GEN/1411 , G/SPS/GEN/1490 , G/SPS/GEN/1550 , 
G/SPS/GEN/ 1617 and G/SPS/GEN/1710 . 
37 G/SPS/GEN/1344 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  (iii) US concerns regarding BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE International Standard; 
(iv) US concerns regarding IPPC phytosanitary certificate requirements for processed food products; 
(v) US concern s regarding the use of the Codex international stan dard on glyphosate; and 
(vi) US concerns  regarding HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE International Standard.  
10.6.   In 2017, several new concerns were raised by the United States relating to: (i) Codex 
guidelines and principles for official certificat ion requirements; (ii) the relation of the World Health 
Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization to Codex Alimentarius; and (iii) the OIE's 
new chapter on porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS). Also in 2017, several 
previously raised issues were discussed: (i) Argentina's  and US concerns on the use of the 
Codex  international standard on glyphosate; (ii) Burkina Faso's  and Senegal's concerns regarding 
the application of ISPM 13 on notifications of non -compliance; (iii) US concern s regarding 
BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard; (iv) US concerns regarding 
IPPC phytosanitary certificate requirements for processed food products; and (v) the EU and 
US concerns regarding HPAI restrictions not consistent w ith the OIE international standard. 
Codex  submitted a report which provided additional information on glyphosate.38 
10.7.   In 2017 , the Committee agreed to circulate the convening airgram one week earlier than the 
previous practice. This meant that the original de adline for raising agenda items under the procedure 
to monitor the use of international standards  (G/SPS/11/Rev.1 ), which was 10 days before the 
meeting, no longer coincided with the deadline for raising issues under other agenda i tems. In this 
regard, the Chairperson suggested that Members respect the earlier deadline for submitting issues 
under the monitoring agenda item, which in practice would mean that Members would submit all 
agenda items up to, but not including, the day on w hich the notice convening the meeting was to 
be issued.  
10.8.   In 2018 , several new issues  were raised:  (i) US  concerns regarding  unnecessary delays in 
adoption of Codex Food Additive Standards ; (ii) US concerns regarding non-science factors in Codex 
standards ; (iii) EU concerns on ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard ; 
(iv) Indonesia's  and US  concerns regarding risk management related to the global movement in 
plant seeds (ISPM 38); and (v) India's concerns regarding the use of the Codex definitions for milk 
and milk products . Some previously raised issues were also discussed: (i) EU and US  concerns 
regarding HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard; (ii) US concerns 
regarding the relation of th e World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization 
to Codex Alimentarius ; (iii) US concerns regarding the non -use of Codex Guidelines and Principles 
on Official Import and Export Certificates ; (iv) US concerns regarding BSE restrictions not consistent 
with the OIE international standard;  and (v) US concerns regarding the use of the Codex 
international standard on glyphosate . 
10.9.   In 2019 , the United Stated raised a new issue regarding  the Codex task force o n antimicrobial 
resistance . The 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 .  
11  OBSERVER STATUS  
11.1  New requests  
11.1.   In May 2016, the Committee received a new request for ad hoc observer status from the 
Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA).39 In October 2016, the Committee 
granted CAHFSA observer status.  
11.2.   In September 2019, the Committee received a new request for ad hoc observer status from 
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).40 In the November 2019 
Committee meeting, some delegations requested more time to consider this request, and the 
Committee agreed to return to it a t its next Committee meeting.  
 
38 G/SPS/GEN/1577/Add .1. 
39 G/SPS/GEN/ 121/Add.1 7. 
40 G/SPS/GEN/1 21/Add. 18. 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  11.3.   In December 2019, the Committee received another new request from the Arab Organization 
for Agricultural Development (AOAD).41 The Committee will be invited to consider this request in its 
next meeting.  
11.2  Outstanding requests  
11.4.   During the period of Review, the Committee did not reach consensus on the outstanding 
requests for observer status, namely the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI 
International; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Specie s of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES); the Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut 
Community (APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO).42 
11.5.   The Committee had agreed, in 2012, that if for any one -year pe riod an ad hoc observer 
organization did not attend any meetings of the SPS Committee, the Committee would consider that 
its observer status has lapsed, but only after the Secretariat had contacted the observer organization 
and received confirmation that i t was no longer interested in maintaining its observer status. This 
verification procedure had been undertaken by the Secretariat since 2012.  
11.6.   In November 2019, the Chairperson recalled that at the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting, 
the Secretariat had high lighted the inconvenience of this verification procedure, and that all 
contacted observers had always indicated an interest in keeping their observer status. The 
Committee had been invited to reflect on whether the verification procedure should be less fre quent 
or applied only when the need arose. The Chairperson proposed applying the procedure less 
frequently in the future.  
11.7.   The Committee agreed  that the verification procedure for observers who have not attended 
any meetings in one year should not be undert aken every year, but as the need arises, for example 
if it became apparent that an observer organization was no longer participating in the meetings.  
12  OTHER SUBSTANTIVE DI SCUSSIONS  
12.1  Maximum residue limits (MRL s) for plant protection products  
12.1.   In 2015, India p resented a document on the need for measures on detection of pesticide 
residues not registered in the country of import for unimpeded flow of trade.43 The purpose  of the 
paper was to put into context the persistent problem faced by exporters from developing  countries 
due to importing countries' application of limits of detection (LoDs) for these pesticides. 
India observed that LoDs were being applied even for substances where Codex standards existed 
and provided examples where the application of LoDs had a t rade impact. The document concluded 
by suggesting certain steps in dealing with this issue. India also proposed two corrections to the 
document.  
12.2.   Several Members shared India's concerns and the need to evaluate whether guidelines could 
be recommended, whil e some also expressed their view that the Committee should not embark on 
the task of producing guidelines. Argentina recalled that in 2007 it had submitted document 
G/SPS/W/21144 on MRLs for pesticides and their impact on exports of developing countries. 
Codex  highlighted that where no MRLs existed, Members should provide data to the relevant 
scientific bod ies to support the elaboration of a Codex standard. Sustainable funding to support 
scientific advice was also key in this area. Codex reminded the Committee that its standards were 
voluntary and only became compulsory once written into legislation. The Chairperson suggested that 
the subject be further explored in a thematic sessi on and invited Members to submit suggestions for 
an agenda for such a thematic session to the Secretariat. The Secretariat was requested to prepare 
a draft programme for such a session.45 
 
41 G/SPS/GEN/ 121/Add.19 . 
42 The list of organizations whose request for observer status is pending is contained in 
G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14 . 
43 G/SPS/W/284 . 
44 See also G/SPS/W/211/Corr.1 . 
45 G/SPS/GEN/1468 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  12.3.   The Secretariat organized a Thematic Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Re sidue Levels46 in 
October 2016 , which brought together officials for an in -depth session focusing on the relevant 
provisions of the SPS Agreement and related dispute settlement reports , as well as the Codex 
approach to establishing MRLs. The workshop also b enefitted from presentations on various regional 
and international initiatives focused on harmonizing MRLs and establishing MRLs for minor -use crops. 
In addition, various WTO Members shared their national experiences on establishing MRLs and 
provided insig hts into the challenges of implementing and complying with Codex MRLs, as well as 
the impact of default MRLs and MRL expiration on international trade. Speakers from the private 
sector also contributed to the workshop, highlighting various ways for the pri vate sector to be 
involved in establishing MRLs, such as by providing relevant technical data. Several follow -up actions 
were proposed during the workshop, with a view to addressing various concerns related to pesticide 
MRLs.  
12.4.   Following the workshop, the U nited States made suggestions47 for future work by the 
SPS Committee in four topic areas: (i) enhancement of the Codex MRL system; (ii) transparency 
and predictability in Members' regulatory approaches; (iii) regular updates on harmonization efforts 
being u ndertaken by APEC, NAFTA, OECD and EAC, with the aim of inspiring similar harmonization 
initiatives at the regional level; and (iv) greater access of developing countries to newer, alternative 
pesticides that can replace older pesticides. The United States  invited Members to consider ways in 
which their regulatory frameworks can impact the investment incentives of the private sector. In 
terms of next steps, the United States proposed that a statement by the Committee be drafted in 
support of this work, but deferred to the Chair and other Members as to the desirability and 
appropriate means to transmit this message.  
12.5.   Several Members supported the follow -up activities proposed by the United States, and 
further requested that the United States, as well as other Members, circulate their suggestions in 
writing for further review. Other MRL -related concerns were expressed by Members, such as the 
absence of alternative chemicals, especially for minor use and specialty crops, and the need for 
greater involvement in da ta generation efforts.  
12.6.   In 2017, the Committee discussed a proposal presented by Kenya, Uganda and the 
United  States on possible next steps for consideration by the SPS Committee.48 The five main 
follow -up actions in order to advance the Committee's work on trade-related MRLs were: (a) enabling 
JMPR to better respond to increased demand and monitoring progress on new Codex MRLs; 
(b) strengthening notification practices for greater transparency and predictability on MRLs; 
(c) reporting to the Committee on inte rnational and regional activities on MRLs; (d) collaborating on 
solutions for MRLs for minor use and specialty crops; and (e) discussing the role of the Committee 
in increasing coordination and harmonization. In relation to the last proposal, the United St ates also 
highlighted that if there was consensus in the Committee on any of the proposed suggestions, 
the Chairperson could issue a statement reflecting this consensus.  
12.7.   In discussions of the proposal, several Members signalled their support, highlighting that the 
areas mentioned were of interest for many Members and that the suggestions would assist in 
improving market access for agricultural exports. Several Members also made suggestions to further 
improve the proposal. India also reminded Members of the proposals made in document 
G/SPS/W /284, and indicated that the concerns remained unaddressed. In the view of the 
United  States, the information provided by experts at the workshop provided a firmer basis for the 
resolution of trade -related MRL issues, based on which the joint paper recogni zed a wide range of 
legitimate MRL -related trade concerns that Members could collectively work to resolve. 
The United  States recognized that the LoD issue was complex, as they had a pre -market 
authorization approval system that was consistent with their ri ghts under the SPS Agreement. 
The United States indicated openness for discussions with India and other Members on their 
perspectives.  
 
46 The summar y report of the Pesticide MRLs Workshop was circulated as G/SPS/R/85 . The programme 
(G/SPS/GEN/1514/Rev.1 ) and presentations from the workshop are available via the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop_oct16_e/wkshop_oct16_e.htm . 
47 October 2016 SPS Committee meeting, see G/SPS/R/84 . 
48 G/SPS/W/292 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  12.8.   The WHO welcomed the proposal for follow -up work on pesticide MRLs. In relation to the JMPR 
recommendation, the WHO encou raged Members to have their national experts apply to serve as 
experts to the JMPR process.  
12.9.   A revised version of the proposal49 was circulated ahead of two consultations held i n 
October  2017. It suggested that the SPS Committee include the recommendations c ontained in the 
proposal in the future Report of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
Agreement. It also suggested that the Committee endorse a proposed Ministerial Decision annexed 
to the proposal for transmission to MC11. A majorit y of Members supported the proposal, some 
indicated that they were still studying it and several Members asked about the proposed process for 
the possible adoption of the Ministerial Decision.  
12.10.   On the basis of comments received, a subsequent revision50 was c irculated, along with a 
compilation of comments that had been received, a track -change version explaining how comments 
had been considered, and a separate response to India's comments. In November 2017, the 
Committee discussed the revised proposal. The authors of the proposal stressed the trade 
disruptions caused by missing and misaligned MRLs, and the urgency of stepping up efforts to find 
solutions to these concerns. They proposed taking this work of the Committee to a higher level, 
which  would give momentum to the important task of resolving MRL -related trade concerns, and 
would also contribute to reinvigorating the work of the Committee.  
12.11.   Many Members expressed their support for the proposal, both the draft Ministerial Decision, 
as well a s the inclusion of the recommendations in the Fifth Review. Several of these Members 
indicated that the proposal and its recommendations broadly captured the current MRL -related 
concerns and noted that the proposal would be beneficial to all Members. Sever al Members also 
thanked the proponents for the transparent and consultative approach used throughout the process, 
highlighting that these discussions had started a year ago, on the basis of deliberations in the 
Workshop on Pesticide MRLs, followed by infor mal discussions in several meetings. In addition, it 
was noted that the topic of pesticide MRLs merited consideration at the Ministerial Conference.  
12.12.   Four Members indicated that they were not in a position to support the Ministerial Decision. 
Their concerns  related to the timing of the proposal, the merits of singling out a single topic for 
Ministers' attention, and the existence of a mandate. One Member raised questions for clarification 
inter alia on the title of the proposed Decision, its scope, some of t he terminology used, and the 
desire to avoid duplication. A couple of Members made textual suggestions, and were invited to 
submit them in writing. India thanked the proponents for their written response to its comments. 
India was of the view that the prop osal required further discussion and indicated that it would 
continue to work with the proponents to substantively address its concerns, as outlined in 
G/SPS/W/284 . India noted that until the discussions in the SPS Committee w ere exhausted, it  would 
be premature to submit recommendations f or the Fifth Review or to the CTG.  
12.13.   Uganda, Kenya and the United States voiced their disappointment that the Committee had 
been unable to reach consensus on the proposal, and also expressed regret for the lost opportunity 
to advance the proposed Ministerial  Decision, which would have been beneficial to all Members, 
particularly to developing and least -developed countries. The United States further provided a 
detailed response to several arguments raised by opponents of the Ministerial Decision.  
12.14.   At the Buenos  Aires Ministerial Conference in December 2017, 17 Ministers signed a joint 
statement on trade in food and agricultural products, which recognizes the work undertaken by the 
SPS Committee to examine pesticide -related issues.51 
12.15.   In 2018, Canada provided infor mation on a training session held in partnership with FAO 
and the United States, with the aim of increasing the pool of scientific experts available to conduct 
pesticide residue evaluations for JMPR, held in November 2017. Canada highlighted that the event  
had increased the availability of knowledgeable experts who would contribute to the JMPR panel and 
to the development of international standards on pesticides. Canada also informed the Committee 
that it was working with FAO to organize an extraordinary se ssion of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on 
 
49 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.1 . 
50 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.2 . 
51 WT/MIN(17)/52 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Pesticide Residues scheduled for May 2019. This meeting would focus on addressing the growing 
backlog of new use evaluations and facilitating the timely establishment of international standards.  
12.16.   In 2018 and 2019, the C ommittee discussed a revised joint proposal on MRLs for plant 
protection products that was submitted under the Fifth Review.52  
12.17.   In 2019, Australia drew attention to the "APEC Import MRL Guideline for Pesticides: 
A Guideline on Possible Approaches to Achieve Alignment of International MRLs ".53 The United States 
and Canada thanked Australia for the information provided.  
12.18.   Also in 2019, China proposed the topic of default (uniform) pesticide MRLs set at limits of 
detection for a workshop or the matic session, noting that there were no relevant international 
standards. Several Members supported the proposal. One Member further suggested that the topic 
be combined with Canada's suggestion for a workshop on risk analysis, but also noted the value of  
China's proposal as a stand -alone issue. Another Member suggested broadening China's proposal to 
include default MRLs for veterinary drug residues and those compounds administered to animals or 
added to feed or fertilizers with the intention to mitigate t he effects of climate change or other 
negative environmental impacts. Some Members supported this suggestion, while highlighting the 
importance of addressing challenges for developing countries.  
12.19.   Also in 2019, Canada stated its commitment to the work of Cod ex. Additionally, it reported 
on its work with the FAO, WHO, the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and Members; 
notably on a JMPR expert training and an extraordinary session of JMPR. The training led to the 
designation of six new JMPR pesticide  residue experts. The United States supported Codex efforts; 
they also highlighted three STDF projects which had led to the establishment of new Codex MRLs. 
The United States also provided information on the Global Minor Use Foundation, which sought to 
expand access to newer, lower -risk pesticide options for tropical produce, and on an international 
workshop on missing MRLs. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Guatemala, Kenya, 
Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Senegal and ECOWAS  echoed Canada's suppo rt for science -based 
SPS measures and the importance of contributing to the work of Codex and JMPR. Chile noted its 
work co -chairing two of JPMR's working groups on pesticide residues, one with India and the 
United  States, and the other with India and Keny a, and encouraged Members to contribute in this 
way. Burkina Faso requested that JMPR include sesame in its studies, and Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria, 
pointed to the need for technical assistance in this area.  
12.20.   Also in 2019, Codex reported that the Codex Alime ntarius Commission had adopted several 
standards and other texts, including MRLs for 32 different pesticides in various foods and feeds , and 
154 food additives provisions in the General Standard for Food Additives. IICA drew attention to a 
workshop it host ed on scientific justification issues arising from the application of the 
SPS Agreement. Representatives of nearly 20 countries had attended the event and had explored 
practical examples of the application of the SPS  Agreement and the proper definition of pesticide 
MRLs.  
12.2  Fall armyworm (FAW)  
12.21.   In 2018, the  European Union informed Members of its specific project on integrated pest 
management strategies to counter the threat of invasive FAW for food security in Eastern Africa. 
Zambia also reported on the presence of FAW in Zambia, but noted that g overnment authorities and 
various stakeholders were working to control the pest.  
12.22.   In 2018 and 2019, the Committee discussed proposals on fall armyworm that were 
submitted under the Fifth Review.54 The Committee agreed to hold a Thematic Session on Fall 
Army worm, b ased on the proposal contained in G/SPS/W/305 . The proposal also suggested the 
 
52 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 . See the section on MRLs for plant protection products in Part A of the Report of 
the Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev. 3), which provides additional details on the substance of the 
submitted proposal and the subsequent discussions.  
53 G/SPS/GEN/1746 . 
54 G/SPS/W/305 , G/SPS/W/309 , G/SPS/W/309/Corr.1  and G/SPS/W/317 . See the section on fall 
armyworm in Part A of the Report of th e Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev. 3), which provides 
additional details on the substance of the submitted proposals and the subsequent discussions.  
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  creation of a working group to discuss this topic. Brazil expressed its support to the proposal  of 
having an open discussion of the working group on fall armyworm.  
12.23.   Also in 2018, the IPPC reported that dis cussions in the Strategic Planning Group (SPG) 
meeting had been looking at how it could be involved in issues related to emerging pests, such as 
FAW. T he African Union ( AU) emphasized that 44 countries had officially reported the presence of 
FAW in their c ountries in February 2018. The AU also indicated that the  Executive Council of the 
African Union Heads of States had considered the challenges presented by FAW, and that an 
emergency fund was being established for this topic, among other initiatives undert aken.55  
12.24.   ECOWAS informed the Committee that the recent introduction of the FAW and the discovery 
of the new alien invasive pest in West Africa were growing threats of concern to agriculture and food 
security in 44  countries in the sub -Saharan region, includ ing 15 West African countries, and informed  
the Committee about the joint monitoring mission FAO -CILSS aimed at anticipating the risk of food 
safety and at informing preparedness and response interventions to FAW.56 ECOWAS also reported 
that it had conducte d regional trainings on improving the monitoring of FAW risk.  
12.25.   Brazil underscored the serious nature of FAW and its impact in Africa and highlighted its 
experience in dealing with the problem, its on -going technical support to African countries to combat 
FAW through an integrated pest approach, and the successful results obtained.  
12.26.   In March 2019, the Committee held a Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm57, as had been 
agreed by the SPS  Committee in November 2018, based on a joint proposal submitted by Brazil, 
Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay, the United States of America and Uruguay.58 The purpose of the 
thematic session was to discuss the role of the WTO SPS Agreement in enabling access to tools and 
technologies and facilitating international trade, using fall armywo rm as a case study. The session 
provided information on the nature and the impact of the spread of fall armyworm across the globe, 
the challenges for smallholders, and the tools and technologies available. Global, regional and 
domestic approaches to enable  regulatory frameworks to facilitate access to safe and effective tools 
and technologies were presented. Members also shared their experiences in dealing with fall 
armyworm, highlighting their successes and challenges. The WTO Global Trust Fund and the 
United States had provided funding for several speakers, which helped ensure a balance of views.  
12.27.   First, the Secretariat provided an overview of certain  SPS Agreement provisions and dispute 
settlement reports that could be relevant to regulatory approaches that enable access to safe tools 
and technologies. In the second session, experts from USAID, the Centre for Agriculture and 
Bioscience International (CABI) and the International Ma ize and Wheat Improvement Center 
(CIMMYT) provided thorough information on the biology, history and spread of the pest, and 
emphasized the importance of integrated pest management as a key framework to approach FAW. 
In the third session, the African  Union Inter-African Phytosanitary Council (AU -IAPSC), USAID, 
ECOWAS, the European Union, Chinese Taipei and the East African Community (EAC) Secretariat 
presented on global, regional and domestic approaches. Finally, Brazil, South Africa, Kenya, 
Paraguay and Aus tralia shared their experiences in dealing with fall armyworm. Suggestions were 
made to build on the exchanges during the thematic session as a contribution to IPPC's 2020 
International Year of Plant Health. The IPPC asked countries to share with the IPPC secretariat cases 
of interventions of FAW in trade.  
12.28.   At the end of the thematic session, the Chairperson invited Members to comment on the 
first open -ended meeting of the Working Group o n FAW, which had been held after the informal 
meeting. Brazil proposed as possible next steps regarding sections 5 and 6 of document 
G/SPS/W/305 , that the working group discuss examples of the effective use of the principles of the 
SPS Agreement to fight FAW, and to collect and compile info rmation and experiences resulting from 
collaboration towards a safer a nd more sustainable agriculture. Brazil suggested that the 
co-sponsors of the proposal for the thematic session could circulate examples building on the 
discussions that took place in the thematic session and in the informal meeting of the 
SPS Committee.  
 
55 G/SPS/GEN/1629 . 
56 G/SPS/GEN/1643 . 
57 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1676/Rev .1, based on the structure suggested 
by the co -sponsors of the proposal in document G/SPS/W/309 . Presentations from the thematic session are 
also available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/works hop19032019_e.htm . 
58 G/SPS/W/305 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 20 - 
 
  12.29.   Also in 2019, the IPPC mentioned that it  was looking at how it could be involved in issues 
related to emerging pests, such as fall armyworm. The African Union reiterated its efforts to support 
the management of FAW outbreaks in Africa with other developing  partners. ECOWAS  drew attention 
to the training it had provided to strengthen the monitoring  of the  prevalence and impact of FAW, 
with the financial and technical support of FAO; which had led to additional targeted funding. 
ECOWAS had also held a regiona l conference on sustainable management of FAW in the Sahel and 
West Africa in Burkina Faso. On plant health, ECCAS had worked on FAW and on a platform for the 
coordination of SPS issues.  
12.3  Antimicrobial resistance  (AMR)  
12.30.   In 2014, the OIE informed  the Committee that the proposed revision of the OIE Terrestrial 
Code standard on risk assessment for AMR had been proposed for adoption.  In October 2015, the 
OECD held a workshop on "Economics of Antimicrobial Use in the Livestock Sector and Development 
of Antimicrobial Resistance". In 2016, the OIE highlighted a technical item which had been discussed 
at the General Session: "Combatting Antimicrobial Resistance through a One Health Approach". The 
OIE further noted that the Assembly had adopted a resolutio n endorsing the basic principles of the 
OIE global strategy against AMR. Also in 2016, IICA informed of a training programme on AMR and 
the establishment of an AMR surveillance system . In 2017, the OIE highlighted work of the ad -hoc 
group  on AMR; IICA note d capacity building activities in areas such as AMR.  
12.31.   Also i n 2017, Senegal provided information on its antimicrobial monitoring plan for food 
products of animal origin to identify sources of contamination, including salmonella, in sheep meat, 
poultry, pork , beef and meat preparations; and for the detection of antibiotic residues in meat 
samples. Senegal emphasized that its national risk assessment system was able to address all food 
safety issues and the data served to guide its authorities on these matters . 
12.32.   In 2018, the European Union informed the Committee that EU co -legislators had agreed on 
the text of the new Regulation on Veterinary Medicinal Products,59 a new legal framework for the 
authorisation and use of veterinary dru gs in the European Union. The E uropean Union explained that 
the European Commission had issued a proposal for the Regulation in September 2014, which had 
been notified under the TBT Agreement in April 2015 as document G/TBT/N/EU/279 . The Regulation 
would enter into force in November 2018, and would take effect at the end of 2021, three years 
after its entry into force. One of the key objectives of the new Regulation was to address the public 
health risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), following the One Health approach. The  European 
Union elaborated that the Regu lation laid down several actions to fight AMR, including: strengthening 
the principles behind the prudent use of antimicrobials, for example by avoiding the routine 
prophylactic and metaphylactic use; reserving certain antimicrobials for treatment of infec tions in 
humans only; and banning the use of antimicrobials in animals for growth promotion or yield 
increase. The European Union noted that the new Regulation was part of a package which included 
a new regulation on medicated feed, which contained measure s aimed at fighting the misuse of 
antimicrobials, including a ban on their use in medicated feed for prophylaxis, and limiting treatment 
duration.  
12.33.   The European Union provided additional information on the new Regulation, while stressing 
the concern that AM R organisms and resistance determinants could spread to humans and animals 
through food and feed originating within or outside the European Union. Therefore, the new 
Regulation would require, in a non -discriminatory and proportional manner, that operators in non -EU 
countries refrain from using antimicrobials for growth promotion or antimicrobials designated in the 
European Union as reserved for human use only, in  respect of animals or products of animal origin 
exported to the European Union.  
12.34.   Japan looked fo rward to receiving more information on the implementation of the new 
Regulation in delegated and implementing acts. The United States requested clarification on the 
rationale for the notification as a TBT measure in 2015. In addition, the United States req uested 
assurances that the measures in delegated and implementing acts would be notified to the 
SPS Committee.  
12.35.   The European Union explained that the original 2014 proposal had been notified under the 
TBT Agreement because, at that time, no SPS provisions had been regarded as potentially affecting 
international trade. The European Union clarified that the original p roposal had changed, and assured 
 
59 Argentina and the United States raised an STC on this topic (STC 446), supported by Australia, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, Colombia and Paraguay.  G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 21 - 
 
  the Committee that the new implementing measures would be notified to the WTO, and would be 
notified to the SPS Committee if it were concluded that they were SPS measures. In any case, the 
SPS Committee would be duly inform ed. 
12.36.   Also in 2018, Codex drew the Committee's attention to the meeting of the Ad hoc Codex 
Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (TFAMR) held in December 2018. Codex 
highlighted two main documents for this meeting which were available for  public comments and 
consultation on the Codex website: (i) the proposed draft Revision of the Code of Practice to Minimize 
and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance (CAC/RCP 61 -2005); and (ii) the proposed draft Guidelines on 
Integrated Surveillance of Antimic robial Resistance. IPPC noted that its Strategic Planning Group 
(SPG) was also considering to what extent the IPPC community should be involved in addressing 
antimicrobial resistance and had agreed to forward this issue to CPM -14 (2019) for discussion.  
12.37.   The OIE reported that new and revised definitions of "veterinary medical use", 
"non-veterinary medical use" of antimicrobials, as well as "growth promotion" had been introduced 
into the Terrestrial Code, to clarify the way countries should report on their use of antimicrobial 
agents in animals and thereby contribute to the global effort to contain AMR. The OIE added that 
these definitions emphasized the  essential role of the veterinary prescription, which should be 
mandatory for any veterinary use. The OIE also informed the Committee on the OIE Global 
Conference on Antimicrobial Resistance which had been held in October 2018, with the aim of 
improving the implementation of OIE standards on AMR.60 
12.38.   The African Union outlined the various activities undertaken to  develop an Animal Health 
Strategy for Africa; develop an African -wide Antimicrobial Resistance Framework.  
12.39.   In 2019, the Russian Federation announced the organization of an international conference 
on "Food Safety Risk Analysis and Antimicrobial Resistance"  to enhance multinational cooperation 
on food safety. The conference would be aimed at gathering representatives in animal health, public 
health and food safety sectors to facilitate an exchange in experiences and best practices relating to 
reduction of AM R, among other topics. Argentina also informed Members about its National 
Programme for Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Surveillance in animals for human consumption.61  
12.40.   As reported under the section on monitoring the use of international standards, the 
United States expressed its commitment to addressing AMR through sound science and collaboration 
in Codex.62 Australia supported the joint work of WHO, the OIE, and FAO in setting international 
standards for AMR and reiterated its commitment on this topic.  
12.41.   Also in 2019, Codex informed the Committee that the Ad hoc Codex Intergovernmental Task 
Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (TFAMR) had agreed to return the proposed revised draft Code of 
Practice to Minimize and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance (CXC 61 -2005) fo r re-drafting. The Task 
Force had also decided to continue working on the development of the Guidelines on Integrated 
Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance. The Ad Hoc  Codex  Intergovernmental Task Force on 
Antimicrobial Resistance would discuss the revi sion of the Code of Good Practice to Minimize and 
Contain Antimicrobial Resistance and on development of guidelines on integrated surveillance of 
antimicrobial resistance. The OIE also indicated that it had published its Third Annual Report on 
Antimicrobia l Agents Intended for Use in Animals, available on its website.63  
12.42.   IICA informed Members of its continued support to its member States in the development 
of integrated antimicrobial resistance surveillance plans, noting that it would provide support to 
Caribbean and Latin American countries through a competitive fund to facilitate participation in the 
meetings of the Ad Hoc Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance. 
The African Union also drew attention to its work with its member States  to coordinate common 
positions on draft chapters of the OIE Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes and on food hygiene and 
antimicrobial resistance for the relevant Codex sessions.  
 
60 For more information see G/SPS/GEN/1652 . 
61 G/SPS/GEN/17 42. 
62 G/SPS/GEN/1751 . 
63 https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientific_expertise/docs/pdf/AMR/Annual_Report_AMR
_3.pdf . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 22 - 
 
  12.4  Gene editing  and other forms of biotechnology  
12.43.   In 2018, Argentina drew the Committe e's attention to a joint communication on precision 
biotechnology ( G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.2 ).64 Argentina also informed of a "Seminar on Genome 
Editing for Regulators" which had been organized by IICA in April 2018, to c oordinate efforts to 
ensure that the regulatory approaches for these techniques, which include gene editing, are 
scientifically based and internationally harmonized. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the 
Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan, Paraguay, the United States, Uruguay and 
Viet Nam supported the International Statement  on Agricultural Applications of Precision 
Biotechnology . ECOWAS also expressed support for the proposal, while highlighting some challenges 
for developing countries in responding to this advanced technology.  
12.44.   In 2019, Argentina informed Members of the Ministerial Declaration issued by the Agriculture 
Ministers of the Southern Agricultural Council (CAS) (comprising Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay 
and Urugua y) on gene editing techniques, dated September 2018 and circulated as 
G/SPS/GEN/1699 . The Declaration highlighted the role of gene editing techniques in addressing 
challenges arising from the need to increase agricultural production in a sustainable manner. The 
non-binding text of th e Declaration aimed at coordinating efforts to ensure that the regulatory 
approaches for these techniques were science -based and internationally harmonized; sought to 
prevent regulatory asymmetries and, in turn, potential trade disruptions; and highlighted  the 
importance of these techniques for national agricultural research institutes. Brazil, Canada, 
Colombia, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay supported the Ministerial Declaration, noting 
that precision biotechnology including genome editing was cri tical to addressing agriculture's most 
difficult production and environmental challenges.  
12.45.   South Africa thanked Members for the initiative and stated that its regulatory authorities had 
been, and would continue to, assess how to regulate gene editing techni ques. Honduras underscored 
the importance of open communication in order to share reliable data towards a better understanding 
of regulatory frameworks and product development. Honduras informed the Committee of a simple 
procedure they had created to appro ve applications related to gene editing.  
12.46.   In 2019, the United States brought Members' attention to its Executive Order 13874, entitled 
Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products. The United States 
also drew attention to its  Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient 
(SECURE) proposed rule.  The rule sought to modernize USDA's plant biotechnology regulations, to 
protect plant health while allowing agricultural innovation to thrive. The framework , and the 
proposed rule, sought  to provide a clear, predictable, and efficient regulatory pathway for innovators . 
The proposed rule sought to  facilitat e the development of new and novel GE plants that would be 
unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.  
12.47.   Also in 2019, t he Thematic Session on Approval Procedures65 had focused, among other 
issues on approval of bi otech products. Codex had presented on relevant guidance on import and 
export requirements including safety assessments of food derived from biotechnology. Likewis e, 
discussions had been held on costs and challenges related to asynchronous global approval 
processes, namely on biotech approvals.  
12.5  Low-Level Presence (LLP)  
12.48.   In 2019, Canada informed the Committee of the work led by the international group Global 
Low-Level Presence Initiative (GLI).66 Canada recalled that in 2012, it had hosted an international 
meeting which gave rise to the International Statement on Low -Level Presence (LLP). Consistent 
with Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) guidance, the International Statement defines LLP as 
the unintentional presence in grain shipments, at low levels, of a gene tically modified (GM) crop that 
had been approved for food use following CAC/GL 45 -2003 Guidelines in at least one country, but 
not yet in the importing country. LLP situations could occur where there was a time gap in the 
authorization of GM  crops between  the importing and exporting countries, or, less frequently, when 
developers did not seek authorizations in all importing countries. GLI members identified reducing 
 
64 G/SPS/GEN/1658/R ev.4 was subsequently circulated on  28 May 2020  with the co -sponsors of 
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, the Philippines, 
the United States and Uruguay.  
65 See section 3 on control, inspection and approval procedures for more information on the thematic 
session.  
66 G/SPS/GEN/1685 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 23 - 
 
  time gaps in approvals of GM crops as the most effective way to tackle LLP and it is one of  the long -
term objectives of the GLI.  
12.49.   Argentina, the United States and Brazil supported the International Statement on LLP 
together with the work of the GLI.  
12.50.   Also in 2019, Argentina informed Members that at the last meeting of the Ministers of 
Agriculture of the Agricultural Council of the South (CAS), Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay 
had signed a declaration on LLP of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) not authorized by the 
importing country.67 The declaration underlined the importance of innovat ion to their agricultural 
production, and of biotechnology as a tool to incorporate innovation in the development of GMOs. 
Argentina encouraged Members not to restrict trade based on LLP of non -authorized GMOs, in the 
importing country, and international co operation in the context of harmonized international 
standards.  
12.51.   Brazil, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay stressed the crucial role of biotech in facing 
global food supply challenges. Canada supported the CAS Declaration on LLPs and drew the 
Committe e's attention to the information session it was hosting on LLPs and its consequences for 
importers and exporters and importing and exporting countries, on the margins of the July 2019 
Committee meeting.  
13  PROCEDURAL ISSUES  
13.1  Brazil's proposal on the functionin g of the SPS Committee ( G/SPS/W/319/Rev.2 ) 
13.1.   In 2019, Brazil coordinated the joint efforts of Members, initiated in the context of the Ottawa 
Group, to work on the functioning of the SPS Committee. In this context, Brazil held several inform al 
consultations with Members and also submitted a proposal68 which seeks to improve the consultation 
process among Members, without any changes to their rights and obligations under WT O rules, with 
the aim of making better use of the Committee's meetings. Brazil thanked Members for their 
participation in the discussions and for their comments; which had been taken into account in 
preparing the revised proposal. Brazil emphasized that improving communication among Members 
when addressing STCs could avoid rec ourse to the dispute settlement mechanism.  
13.2.   Many Members welcomed the initiative of discussing ways in which the work of the Committee 
could be improved to make it more efficient and transparent. One Member proposed an addition, to 
make it possible to shar e comments on draft notified measures and receive replies through an online 
system that would be publicly available. This would encourage transparency and better coordination. 
Several Members supported this suggestion.  
13.3.   A few Members highlighted similarities and differences with the General Council proposal 
circulated by the European Union and others ( WT/GC/W/777/Rev.4 ). Although this proposal had a 
more general scope beyond the  SPS Comm ittee, it shared similar objectives. Some Members 
suggested that the proponents should attempt to find common ground, and Brazil and the European 
Union both indicated that they were open to discussions in this regard.  
13.4.   Several Members emphasized th at the proposed changes should not affect the interactive 
nature of the discussions in the Committee or make it more difficult to raise STCs. Other Members 
questioned whether the proposed changes needed to be agreed in a formal decision. They wished 
to allow the Committee to try new mechanisms and procedures without losing flexibility to make 
further changes in the future. They were concerned that implementing certain provisions could 
impose additional burdens on constrained delegations.  
13.5.   Finally, Brazil men tioned that the consultative process was still ongoing. Brazil welcomed 
further comments and would reflect them in the proposal. If others considered it necessary or 
relevant, Brazil was willing to chair further open -ended consultations.  
 
67 G/SPS/GEN/1703 . 
68 G/SPS/W/319 , which was subsequently revised in G/SPS/W/319/Rev.1  and G/SPS/W/319/Rev.2 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 24 - 
 
  13.2  Annotated agenda  
13.6.   At the Chairperson's suggestion, the Secretariat prepared and circulated a pilot annotated 
agenda for the July 2019 SPS Committee meeting, in addition to the convening airgram. 
The Chairman explained that the annotated agenda, circulated as a pilot, was mea nt to complement 
the official airgram. A similar document would be circulated as a Job document for the 
November  2019 SPS Committee meeting, after the circulation of the formal agenda, with 
translations to be circulated soon after.69 The Chairman drew Membe rs' atten tion to the table of 
STCs in the Annex and hoped Members presenting STCs would provide a brief description of the 
STC to fill in the respective column of the table. The Chairman requested Members to share their 
comments on the annotated agenda.  
13.7.   Chile supported the circulation of an annotated agenda by the Secretariat, and added that it 
would contribute to improving its domestic coordination and enhancing its participation in the 
SPS Committee. Paraguay and Argentina also supported the initiative.  
13.8.   The Secretariat further clarified that in the TBT Committee, the annotated agenda replaced 
the convening airgram. The Secretariat proposed circulating both the convening airgram and the 
translated annotated agenda as a supplement to it, until Members were used to the annotated 
agenda.  
13.9.   In response to a question from Chinese Taipei regarding the agenda format of informal 
meetings, the Chairperson clarified that informal meetings did not have an airgram, but that further 
information could be circulated before the following informal meeting.70 
13.10.   In the November 2019 meeting, the Secretariat invited Members' comments on the proposal 
to produce an annotated agenda for the formal meeting instead of a convening airgram in the future. 
No Member raised any concerns. The Secretariat indicated that the annotated agenda would replace 
the convening airgram for the March 2020 meeting.  
13.3  Agenda item on cross -cutting issues  
13.11.   In 2015, the Committee agreed to add a new standing agenda item on "Cross -cutting Issues" 
to its agenda, in order to have a place for all discussions of more general topics that related to the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement and that did not fit under any other agenda item. This new 
agenda item was added as of the March 2016 meeting. More generally, the Comm ittee also decided 
to make additional changes to the structure of the agenda, in order to improve the fluidity of 
discussions. The new structure for the agenda was first used for the October 2016 Committee 
meeting.71  
14  REGIONALIZATION (ART ICLE 6)  
14.1.   Following adoption of the "Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 6 of 
the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures", the Committee agreed 
to monitor the implementation of Article 6, on the basis of informa tion provided by Members through 
notifications and from information presented during SPS Committee meetings, and to revise the 
guidelines, if necessary in light of experience gained through the implementation of the Agreement 
and the use of the guidelines themselves. The following six reports have been issued by the 
SPS Secretariat during the period of this current review: (i) the first one covering the period from 
June 2013 through March 2014;72 (ii) the second one covering the period from April 2014 throug h 
March 2015;73 (iii) the third one covering the period from April 2015 through March 2016;74 (iv) the 
fourth one covering the period from April 2016 through March 201775; (v) the fifth one covering the 
 
69 For the No vember 2019 SPS Committee meeting, an annotated agenda was circulated for the formal 
meeting in document JOB/SPS/3 . 
70 For the November 2019 SPS Committee meeting, an annotated agenda was circulated for the 
informal meeting in document JOB/SPS/4 . 
71 WTO/AIR/SPS/12  and WTO/AIR/SPS/12/Rev.1 . 
72 G/SPS/GEN/1333 . 
73 G/SPS/GEN/1412 . 
74 G/SPS/GEN/1491 . 
75 G/SPS/GEN/1552  and G/SPS/GEN/1552/Corr.1 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 25 - 
 
  period from April 2017 through March 2018;76 and (vi) the  sixth one covering the period from 
April 2018 through March 2019.77 
14.2.   Both the IPPC and the OIE have provided guidance for countries seeking to establish, or to 
be recognized for, pest - or disease -free status. The IPPC currently has several directly relevant  
standards: ISPM 4 on requirements for the establishment of pest -free areas; ISPM 10 for the 
establishment of pest -free places of production and pest -free production sites; ISPM 22 on 
requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence; ISPM  26 on the establishment 
of pest -free areas for fruit flies; ISPM 29 on the recognition of pest -free areas and areas of low pest 
prevalence; and ISPM 30 on the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies. In 
addition, IPPC has a number of  supporting standards, including guidelines for pest surveillance.78 
14.3.   The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code describes the requirements for obtaining disease -free 
status including requirements for surveillance and monitoring based on the concept of geographi c 
zones. During its annual General Sessions, the OIE has adopted a number of resolutions related to 
recognition of disease -free areas. In 2015, the OIE adopted the revised standard on foot and mouth 
disease. In addition, a specific provision relating to th e BSE standard was added to the 
Terrestrial  Code. In 2016, the OIE adopted the amendment of the user guide to clarify that zoning 
and compartmentalization should be considered as tools to control diseases and to facilitate safe 
trade; and the addition of " reptiles" to the definition of "animal" in the glossary. In 2017, a major 
revision of the chapter on African swine fever was adopted. 79 
14.4.   At the October 2015 meeting, the OIE provided information on the relevance of the OIE 
standards and related procedures i n relation to two recent WTO disputes.80 The United States 
expressed appreciation for the information provided by the OIE in its document, which illustrated 
how the OIE's standard setting activities helped resolve trade disputes and facilitate safe trade in  
live animals and  livestock products. The United States highlighted several aspects of the paper that 
were particularly relevant to the effective functioning of the SPS Agreement. These aspects included, 
among others: the implementation of adopted standard s and participation in the development of 
these standards; access to expertise and knowledge of scientists from the OIE's global network of 
reference centres and laboratories; and development of standards and guidance on regionalization.  
14.5.   Argentina and the European Union also extended appreciation for the work of the OIE in 
establishing standards for animal health and safe trade. The European Union further underscored its 
commitment to providing financial assistance to the OIE in order to facilitate broad pa rticipation of 
developing countries in the OIE's work. The European Union encouraged Members to use the OIE 
standards actively, in particular the standards on regionalization, which facilitated trade by ensuring 
measures were limited to what was necessary and justified.  
14.6.   In 2016, the OIE tabled a report81 that related to official disease -free recognition status of 
member countries for six priority diseases: bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE); foot  and 
mouth disease (FMD); contagious bovine pleuropneumonia  (CBPP); African horse sickness (AHR); 
peste des petits ruminants (PPR) and classical swine fever (CSF).82 The OIE highlighted its official 
endorsement of national disease control programmes currently provided with regard to FMD, PPR 
and CBPP.  
14.7.   In 2017, the Committee held a Thematic Session on Regionalization,83 based on a proposal 
submitted by the European Union.84 The purpose of the thematic session was to provide an 
opportunity for Members to increase their awareness of regionalization principles, and to lea rn from 
each othe r by sharing experiences about the challenges and benefits, of implementing 
regionalization in practice from the perspective of an importing, as well as an exporting party. In 
 
76 G/SPS/GEN/1618 . 
77 G/SPS/GEN/1711 . 
78 For more information on the IPPC's work, see Appendix C. The appendices are available via the 
following link: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/tables_e/G_SPS_W_313_Appendix_A -D.xlsx . 
79 For more informat ion on the OIE's work, see Appendix C. The appendices are available via the 
following link: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/tables_e/G_SPS_W_313_Ap pendix_A -D.xlsx . 
80 G/SPS/GEN/1438 . 
81 G/SPS/GEN /1499 . 
82 A detailed list of cou ntries, including some who had provided reports at the Committee meeting, can 
be found in Annex 1 of G/SPS/GEN/1499 , as well as on the OIE website.  
83 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1567 . Presentations from the thematic session 
are also available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop11july17_e.htm . 
84 The European Union proposal is contained in document G/SPS/W/293 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 26 - 
 
  particular, the thematic session focused on animal diseases. Th e thematic session benefitted from 
presentations on the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement (Article 6), guidelines ( G/SPS/48 ), 
as well as jurisprudence from recent disputes. In addition, the OIE provided an overview of its 
standards on zonin g and compartmentalization, including implementation challenges and 
opportunities in applying the regionalization approach.  
14.8.   Members shared their experiences on the practical implementation of regionalization in 
dealing with diseases such as highly pathoge nic avian influenza, BSE, classical swine fever, as well 
as more general experiences in applying the regionalization principle. Discussions highlighted the 
differences in terminology related to regionalization, the importance of 'peace -time' agreements and  
building trust among trading partners, as well as creating regional frameworks for cooperation, 
among others. In addition, several common weaknesses were identified in the recognition process 
from the importing Members' perspective, such as the submission  of insufficient data by the 
exporting Member. In addition, the OIE underscored that reports of avian influenza outbreaks in wild 
birds should not change a country's disease status and, as such, should not result in trade 
restrictions.  
14.9.   Chile requested clar ification on the OIE's plan for monitoring international standards. The OIE 
explained that it was still in the early stages of its work with the OECD to develop a framework to 
monitor the national implementation of OIE standards. Chile also suggested that the Committee 
organize another thematic session on regionalization with a specific focus on plant health. Several 
Members supported this suggestion. The United States further suggested developing a deeper 
exchange with the OIE on a regular basis, as the OI E's information was so valuable.  
14.10.   Also in 2017, the United States encouraged Members to actively use the agenda on 
regionalization to share experiences on challenges encountered and successes achieved in applying 
the principles of regionalization to facilit ate safe trade. It further encouraged Members to strengthen 
the implementation of regionalization in a manner consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. 
The United States proposed: (i) the upcoming Fifth Review of the SPS Agreement as a possible 
avenu e to focus on regionalization; (ii) to further the discussion within the Committee by holding 
future thematic sessions or workshops to explore aspects of regionalization in greater detail, perhaps 
with a focus on developing guidance on best practices; (iii ) a Thematic Session on Pest -Free Areas 
in February 2018; and (iv) that Members report on cases where they had successfully applied the 
concept of regionalization in resolving a specific trade concern. The United States concluded by 
calling on other Member s to provide possible ideas on how to build on the discussion held in 
July 2017 on regionalization. The United States offered to present a short proposal for the next 
Thematic Session on Pest -Free Areas for Members' comments, if there was interest.  
14.11.   The Eur opean Union welcomed the United States proposal and highlighted the importance 
of continuous work on regionalization, possibly within the framework of the Fifth Review. 
The European Union considered favourably the proposal to hold a Thematic Session on Pes t-Free 
Areas in February 2018. The European Union was also interested in observing cases where 
regionalization had been useful and where it had failed to address trade concerns. With regards to 
the suggestion on guidance or best practices, the European Uni on pointed to the existing guidelines 
on the implementation of Article 6 and enquired about the added value in elaborating on this. Finally, 
the European Union emphasised the contribution of the relevant international organizations, the OIE 
and IPPC, on th is matter. Chile also supported the US suggestions.  
14.12.   The OIE provided information on its Scientific Enquiry Commission proposal regarding 
emergency, preventive and temporary zoning in response to increased disease threats, avoiding 
unjustified barriers to t rade.85 An ad hoc group ha d also been established to undertake a review of 
Chapter 10.4 of the Code on infection with avian influenza viruses. The OIE also provided an update 
on its new Observatory project which aimed to develop a framework to monitor the p rogress and 
constraints faced in the implementation of OIE standards.  
14.13.   In November 2017 , the Committee agreed to hold a Thematic Session on Pest -Free Areas, 
that was held on February 2018, based on a proposal submitted by the United States 
(G/SPS/GEN/1593/Rev.1 ).86 It provided an opp ortunity for Members to increase their awareness of 
IPPC standards on pest -free areas, and to share experiences about the challenges, as well as the 
benefits, of implementing pest -free areas in practice from the perspective of an importing, as well 
 
85 G/SPS/GEN/1583 . 
86 The programme  is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1596/Rev.1  and the presentations are available 
at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop27feb18_e.htm . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 27 - 
 
  as an e xporting party. This, in turn, would contribute to building confidence among trading partners 
when recognizing or seeking recognition of pest -free areas. The Secretariat provided an overview of 
the SPS  Agreement (Article 6 ) and the  Guidelines to Further th e Practical Implementation of Article 
6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  (G/SPS/48 ), as well 
as relevant dispute settlement reports from recent disputes. On behalf of the IPPC, a Member 
presented on the IP PC standards on pest -free areas; factors to consider when establishing pest -free 
areas; implementation challenges; and information on the IPPC's Pest -Free Area Project.  
14.14.   Discussions were also held on the role of dispute settlement panels in assessing the e vidence 
provided by Members in relation to the determination of pest -free areas and on the broad nature of 
IPPC standards, among other  issues. Regional and international perspectives on the establishment 
of pest  free areas were shared by COSAVE and IAEA, r espectively. Finally. Members shared their 
practical experiences on the establishment and maintenance of pest -free areas, as well as the 
legislative aspects and more general principles related to their implementation. The discussions 
highlighted the import ance of the early detection of pests, the availability of a corrective action plan 
to deal with outbreaks, and building trust among trading partners.  
14.15.   Also in 2018, the OIE highlighted the revised chapter of the Terrestrial Code on zoning and 
compartmentali zation, and the revised questionnaires on the procedures for self -declaration and for 
official recognition of disease status by the OIE. Later in 2018, the OIE highlighted the new 
procedures for self -declarations of disease freedom by countries and that OI E member countries 
could also apply for official OIE endorsement of their national control programmes for certain 
diseases.  
14.16.   In 2018 and 2019, the Committee discussed several proposals on regionalization that were 
submitted under the Fifth Review.87 In 2019 , the IPPC reported of an upcoming international 
symposium on pest -free areas in Japan.88 
15  RISK ANALYSIS: RISK ASSESSMENT (ART. 5),  RISK MANAGEMENT AND  
COMMUNICATION  
15.1.   In the context of the Fourth Review, the United States proposed the organization of a 
Worksh op on Risk Analysis.89 The United States noted that since the last workshop on this topic in 
2000, 90 a significant amount of work must have been carried out by Members and the three sisters. 
Many Members supported the proposal and proposed that a session on  risk communication be 
included in the programme.  
15.2.   In 2014, the Committee agreed that risk analysis be the topic of that year's thematic 
workshop. The Committee also considered South Africa's proposal on risk assessment and the 
appropriate level of protect ion (ALOP), submitted in the context of the Fourth Review.91 One Member 
proposed that the issue of special and differential treatment should also be taken into account when 
establishing the A LOP. The Committee agreed to address South Africa' proposal, which  consisted of 
two questions related to the implementation of Article 5.4 of the SPS  Agreement, in the context of 
the Workshop on Risk Analysis. The Workshop on Risk Analysis was held on October 2014. The 
Secretariat developed a programme for the workshop b ased on the US proposal and inputs from 
Members.92 Over 500 applications for WTO funding were received by the deadline. In  selecting 50 
participants for WTO funding, priority was given to LDC  government officials and those holding 
responsibilities in the ri sk analysis area. The workshop provided a platform for discussion, experience 
 
87 G/SPS/W/298 , G/SPS/W/301 , G/SPS/W/303 , G/SPS/W/307  and G/SPS/W/311 . See the section on 
regionalization in Part A of the Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev. 3), which provides 
additional de tails on the substance of the submitted proposals and the subsequent discussions.  
88 The WTO Secretariat participated in this symposium via video conference and delivered a presentation 
on pest -free areas and the SPS Agreement, including the SPS Committee G uidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  
89 G/SPS/W/275 . 
90 The programme and presentations from the Workshop on Risk Analysis held in 2000 are available via 
the following link: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/risk00_e/risk00 _e.htm . The report is also 
available in document G/SPS/GEN/209 . 
91 G/SPS/GEN/1307 . 
92 The summary report of the Risk Analysis Workshop was circulated as G/SPS/R/77 . The programme 
(G/SPS/GEN/1336  and G/SPS/GEN/1358 ), presentations and audio clips from the workshop are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop_oct14_e/wkshop_oct14_e.htm . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 28 - 
 
  sharing and best practices concerning SPS -related risk analysis. Delayed streaming of the workshop 
was made possible through a partnership with IICA.  
15.3.   In 2015, the United States p resented a submission on possible next steps.93 Its proposal 
focused on three key challenges identified by Members at the workshop, and for which further action 
had been suggested: (i) the need to improve sharing of information related to risk assessment;  (ii) 
the interest from some Members to benefit from assistance of other Members to improve their 
capacity to perform risk analyses, for instance through a mentoring programme; and  (iii) the 
suggestion to hold an informal session on risk communication prior to the July 2015 meeting of the 
Committee. The United States also noted the work being carried out in FAO, WHO and the three 
sisters on risk assessment and asked the Committee to strengthen its collaboration with these 
organizations.  
15.4.   Many Members expressed  their general support for the US proposal, indicating that they would 
need more time to consider all the elements proposed and how they could be implemented in 
practice. In particular, the proposal to hold a Thematic Session on Risk Communication in July  2015 
received broad support. FAO and IPPC expressed interest in participating in the thematic session. 
FAO also provided information on recent work done in this area,94 in particular the development of 
a handbook on risk communication.  
15.5.   In 2015, the Committee held its first thematic session, on risk communication,95 as a follow -up 
event to the 2014 Workshop on Risk Analysis.  The thematic session provided the opportunity for 
Members and relevant international organizations to share experiences and lesso ns learned in 
relation to risk communication strategies in the SPS area. In addition, the Secretariat provided the 
historical context, recalling that when the SPS Agreement was negotiated, the three sisters had not 
yet developed clear guidance on the proce ss of risk analysis. However, it had now been widely 
accepted that the risk analysis process involved risk assessment, risk management and risk 
communication. Several panellists - representing Codex,  OIE, IPPC, FAO, IICA and the 
United  States  - responded t o a series of questions on the existing guidance in the area of risk 
communication. In addition, speakers from both developing and developed countries highlighted the 
specific risk communication strategies that had been employed in response to pressing SPS  issues.  
15.6.   Later in 2015, the United States presented a compendium on practical resources that 
Members could access on risk communication.96 Recalling the significant interest in risk 
communication during the 2014 Workshop on Risk Analysis and the thematic se ssion held in 2015, 
the United States had compiled a list of useful information and strategies collected from various 
international organizations, US government agencies and research organizations. In particular, the 
United States highlighted a compendium put together by the US National Academy of Science, which 
looked at factors that influenced how people absorbed information. The United States welcomed 
further discussions on risk analysis and the sharing of information and experiences.  
15.7.   In 2016, IICA infor med the Committee of the approval of a resolution entitled "Working Group 
to Improve the Capabilities of the Countries of the Americas for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Risk 
Assessment" at the 18th meeting of the Inter -American Board of Agriculture (IABA), he ld in 
October  2015. IICA planned to establish a working group comprised of relevant regional 
organizations and also to organize a meeting in Costa Rica to discuss current approaches to risk 
assessment; national and regional challenges; capacity building ne eds and risk assessment; and 
strategies for improving the capacities of member countries and organizations. The result of the 
meeting would be a document explaining the current state of SPS risk analysis, and areas that need 
improvement, as well as propose d solutions to address deficiencies. IICA thanked Brazil for its 
interest and support for the development of this initiative. Brazil thanked IICA for informing the 
Committee of this initiative to improve the capacity of member countries in the area of SPS risk 
analysis, and further expressed its full commitment to participate and support the initiative.  
15.8.   In 2017, the Russian Federation reported on the international conference on Food Safety and 
Risk Analysis, held on 18 -19 May 2017 in Sochi, Russia, jointly organized by the Russian Federation 
and the FAO. The meeting was attended by 250 representatives from 23 countries, several 
organizations and representatives of FAO, WHO, WTO and Codex. Leading scientists and experts 
 
93 G/SPS/GEN/1401 . 
94 G/SPS/GEN/1405 . 
95 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1428 . Presentations from the session are also 
available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop_jul15_e/wkshop_jul15_e.htm . 
96 G/SPS/GEN/1456 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 29 - 
 
  had presented on the current status and  trends in research on food safety. The conference had 
covered risk assessment, risk management and risk communication, food safety, food contamination 
and capacity building.  
15.9.   In 2018, the European Union indicated its commitment to provide financial support  to the 
Codex risk assessment bodies (i.e. JMPR, JECFA and JEMRA), through a grant agreement of 402,000 
euros during the period 2018 -2020. The European Union further urged Members and the two parent 
bodies to consider more sustainable financing mechanisms to fund Codex scientific work, such as 
funding from the WHO's core budget. Chile also reiterated the need to secure funding for the risk 
assessment activities being undertaken, and underscored the importance of Codex and its role in 
developing internationa l standards in the food safety area.  
15.10.   Also in 2018, the IPPC reported on  its development of guides on pest -free areas and pest 
risk communication. Codex reported  on the decision of the Chairperson of the Codex Committee on 
Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Fo od (CCRVDF) not to move the MRLs for Zilpaterol to step 5 for 
intermediate adoption, despite the completed JECFA risk assessment and Members' consensus on 
the science . Codex also reported  on the adoption of the Risk Management Recommendation for 
Gentian vi olet.  
15.11.   In 2019, the Russian Federation informed the Committee  of the International Conference on 
Food Safety  Risk Analysis and Antimicrobial Resistance, to be held in Moscow on 
17-18 December  2019. The aim of the conference, jointly organized with FAO, was  to enhance 
multinational cooperation on food safety, gathering representatives in animal health, public health 
and food safety sectors to facilitate exchange in experiences and best practices relating to reduction 
of AMR, assess multifaceted food safety r isks, enhance multilateral dialogue and promote 
partnerships between different stakeholders. In addition, t he Dominican Republic highlighted the 
Risk Analysis Consortium created with the support of IICA (including its SPS Leadership Course) and 
OIRSA.  
15.12.   In 2018 and 2019, the Committee discussed the proposals submitted on ALOP, risk 
assessment and science that were submitted under the Fifth Review.97 Also in 2019 , the STDF 
informed the Committee of the dialogue in the STDF Working Group about the need for furth er 
guidance on risk management at the border. The IPPC reported that two new guides - on pest -free 
areas and on pest risk communication - were in the final stages of publication. COMESA also reported 
that several training activities on risk assessment and risk management, responsible use of 
veterinary products by farmers, and the implementation of national residue monitoring plants were 
conducted in Rwanda.  
16  SPECIAL AND DIFFEREN TIAL TREATMENT (ARTI CLE 10)  
16.1.   Special and differential treatment continues to be a  standing agenda item, although no 
Member has raised any specific matter under this agenda subsequent to the Third Review. 
The Secretariat has kept the SPS Committee informed of discussions in the Committee on Trade and 
Development Special Session on propo sals relating to Articles 10.2 and 10.3 of the SPS  Agreement.  
16.2.   In 2015, Nigeria encouraged Members to discuss the proposals, with regard to the special and 
differential treatment provisions of the SPS Agreement, submitted prior to the Cancún Ministerial 
Conference. India asked the Secretariat whether there had been any experience sharing in the 
implementation of Article 10.1 and 10.2 of the SPS Agreement under this agenda item. 
The Secretariat indicated that there had been discussions a number of years earli er, and that two 
documents had resulted from these discussions: the Report on Proposals for Special and Differential 
Treatment ( G/SPS/35 ); and the Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential 
Treatment in Favour of Developing Coun try Members ( G/SPS/33/Rev.1 ). Since its adoption, no 
requests had been submitted under this Procedure.  
16.3.   The WTO reported on an informal meeting of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade 
and Development, held on 6 October 2015 , which had considered special and differential (S&D) 
proposals submitted by the G90, including on Articles 10.1 and 10.2 of the SPS Agreement and 
Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement.98 The SPS -related proposals referred to: (i) early notification by 
 
97 G/SPS/W/301  and G/SPS/W/308 . See the section on ALOP, risk assessment and scienc e in Part A of 
the Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev. 3), which provides additional details on the 
substance of the submitted proposals and the subsequent discussions.  
98 The proposals are contained in document JOB/DEV/29 /Rev.1 -JOB/TNC/51 /Rev.1 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 30 - 
 
  develope d countries of all their SP S and TBT measures; (ii) allowing for longer comment periods 
before the adoption of a measure; (iii) longer time frames for compliance with SPS measures (at 
least 12 months) for developing countries, in particular LDCs and SVEs; and (iv) mandatory financial 
and technical assistance. The Secretariat reported that Members had expressed divergent views on 
those proposals. Some mentioned relevant SPS Committee work, including the Procedure to Enhance 
Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of Developing Country Members 
(G/SPS/33/Rev.1 ). The Secretariat noted that the SPS Committee's Report on S&D Proposals 
(G/SPS/35 ), adopted ten years ago, also provided relevant background o n the underlying concerns, 
some of which remained the same.  
16.4.   In 2017, Nigeria highlighted the importance of the implementation and enforcement of 
provisions on special and differential treatment in the SPS Agreement, for Africa in general and 
Nigeria in par ticular. Nigeria argued that they were placed at a disadvantage because those 
provisions were not fully enforced. The Dominican Republic echoed Nigeria's concern and urged 
Members to take this principle into account when applying new legislation.  
16.5.   Madagasca r also noted the concerns expressed by Members on new regulatory provisions 
taken by the European Union as well as measures in force on pesticides with endocrine disruptor 
effects. In view of the complexity of these measures and their impact on its economy , Madagascar 
requested that the European Union take into consideration the situation of Madagascar in the 
application of those measures. Pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreement, Madagascar 
requested special and differential treatment together wi th technical assistance to enable it to set up, 
at a national level, the necessary measures to bring the country in line with the regulation, including 
a plan towards the progressive withdrawal of pesticides which would be banned.  
17  SPS-RELATED PRIVATE STANDARDS  
17.1  Background  
17.1.   The effects of SPS -related private standards ("private standards") on trade, and the 
appropriate role of the SPS Committee, has been discussed by the Committee since the issue was 
first raised in 2005 by Saint Vincent and the G renadines with regard to EurepGAP (now called 
GLOBALGAP) requirements on pesticides used on bananas destined for sale in European markets.99 
After considerable discussion in the SPS Committee, an ad hoc working group was established to 
identify "Possible Ac tions for the SPS Committee Regarding SPS -Related Private Standards".100 At its 
March 2011 meeting, the Committee endorsed five of the six actions put forward by the ad hoc 
working group.101 Despite further revision and discussions, consensus was not reached o n 
Action  6.102 In addition, six other actions were also identified by the working group on which 
consensus could not be reached. These proposed actions are listed in Annex I of the ad hoc working 
group report, along with a brief explanation of the main diffe rences of opinion.  
17.2.   Since 2011, the Committee's discussions on private standards have focused on the five actions 
agreed by the Committee and, in particular, on Action 1 relating to the development of a working 
definition of SPS -related private standards.  
17.2  Action 1 - Definition  
17.3.   The Committee discussed a working definition on the basis of draft definitions prepared by 
the Secretariat drawing on proposals from Members.103 In 2013, the Committee agreed to form an 
electronic working group (e -WG), with China and New  Zealand as "co -stewards".  
17.4.   In 2014, following a suggestion by Canada, the Secretariat circulated a note on existing 
definitions of "private standards" in other international organizations, revised to take into account 
additional definitions reported by Arg entina and Canada at the July 2014 meeting.104 
The co-stewards presented two reports on the work of the e -WG,105 including proposed working 
 
99 G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1 , paras.16 -20. 
100 G/SPS/W/256 . 
101 G/SPS/55 . 
102 G/SPS/W/261 . 
103 G/SPS/W/265 , G/SPS/W/265/Rev.1  and G/SPS/W/265/Rev.2 . 
104 G/SPS/GEN/1334  and G/SPS/GEN/1334/Rev.1 . 
105 G/SPS/W/276 , G/SPS/W/281 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 31 - 
 
  definitions, but no consensus was reached. The Committee agreed to give the co -stewards and the 
e-WG more time to pursue  their efforts in trying to bridge differences and come up with a 
compromise working definition that could be presented for consideration and adoption by the 
Committee as soon as possible.  
17.5.   In 2015, the co -stewards circulated another report on the work of t he e-WG106. The report 
detailed the latest round of discussions and e -WG members' concerns, suggestions and flexibilities 
and noted that the e -WG, while very close, had not been able to reach consensus on the working 
definition. There had in particular been an impasse with the terms "non -governmental entities" and 
"requirements" and the co -stewards had suggested a cooling off period for all e -WG Members to 
reflect further on the issue.  
17.6.   Some Members stressed the need to keep working towards a working definitio n of SPS -related 
private standards, given their effects on many developing countries' exports and economies. 
Other  Members noted the fundamental differences amongst Members on the scope of the 
SPS Agreement and regarding some of the suggested language in t he definition. Given the obvious 
impasse, these Members supported the proposal of the co -stewards for a cooling off period. It was 
agreed that the e -WG would take some time to further reflect, and that the co -stewards, China and 
New Zealand, would restart work when most appropriate, with the objective of agreeing on a working 
definition as soon as possible.  
17.7.   Still in 2015, the co -stewards reported on their consultations with the e -WG following the 
cooling off period agreed in March 2015. Very limited feedbac k had been received on how to progress 
work. Argentina introduced a document107 regarding discussions on a definition of SPS -related 
private standards and stressed the need to agree on a definition, given the numerous harmful effects 
of private standards. Be lize also presented a document108 which proposed a new definition of 
SPS-related private standards. Members were encouraged to think about new and innovative ways 
to move forward, including any useful fresh approach. The Chair suggested that the e -WG continu e 
its cooling -off period, until new thinking or proposals emerged.  
17.8.   The Chairperson indicated that three issues - the working definition of SPS -related private 
standards; the recommendations related to private standards in the Fourth Review Report; and the 
Committee's future work on that issue - were linked and could only be resolved together.  
17.9.   During 2016 and 2017, discussions on this subject were mainly held within the context of the 
adoption of the report of the Fourth Review ( G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2 ), particularly in relation to 
concerns related to a recommendation on the Committee's future work on private standards.109 
17.3  Actions 2 to 5  
17.10.   Since 2011, the Committee has also discussed the implementation of the other four agreed 
actions . On Action 2, it was noted that information exchange mechanisms between the 
SPS Committee and the three sisters were already in place and functioning. Some Members 
encouraged Codex,  OIE and  IPPC to contact the private schemes identified by Members in docu ment 
G/SPS/GEN/932 /Rev.1  to promote the use of international standards, and report back to the 
Committee on those contacts. Codex provided updates on its work on the issue of private standards, 
including its discussions on private standards in the framework of Codex regiona l bodies. Codex also 
continued to reach out to private standards -setting organizations to encourage them to become 
Codex observers and take part in Codex meetings. The OIE highlighted steps it had taken to promote 
compatibility and avoid conflict between p rivate and official standards, and drew attention to the 
OIE General Assembly's Resolution on Private Standards.110 The IPPC noted that it had requested 
that ISO clarify that there were no obligations to implement ISO standards in order to comply with 
IPPC s tandards. Chile also referred to the OIE's cooperation with private standard -setting bodies to 
ensure that their standards were aligned with OIE standards. Chile also noted that OIE and Codex 
 
106 G/SPS/W/283 . 
107 G/SPS/W/285 . 
108 G/SPS/W/288 . 
109 Following a proposal from the United States ( G/SPS/W/291 ), in March 2017, and su bsequent 
discussions among Members, the specific recommendation was replaced by descriptive text explaining the 
nature of the disagreement. At its July 2017 meeting, the Committee agreed on the inclusion of new language 
in section 14 of the report, as circ ulated in document RD/SPS/15 , and adop ted the Fourth Review Report 
(G/SPS/62 ). 
110 G/SPS/GEN/1024 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 32 - 
 
  should increase the participation of private standard -setting bo dies as observers in their standard -
setting processes. This collaboration would help improve transparency and the implementation of 
official science -based standards.  
17.11.   On Action 3, the Secretariat has kept the Committee informed of relevant discussions in 
other WTO fora, including: (i) the thematic discussion on standards organized during the March 2014 
TBT Committee meetings;111 (ii) sessions of the 5th Global Review of Aid for Trade; and (iii)  various 
sessions of the 2016 WTO Public Forum.112 
17.12.   On Action 4, it wa s noted that useful ideas could be shared amongst Members regarding 
their efforts to reach out to entities involved in private standard -setting in their territories. China 
suggested that when communicating with private standard -setting entities, Members ma ke 
reference to the Code of Good Practice of the TBT Agreement and to the TBT Committee's Decision 
on the "Six Principles" for the preparation of international standards.113 Belize also noted that Action 
4 could be enhanced by sensitizing private standard -setting entities to the list of concerns in 
paragraph 24 under Action 6 of document G/SPS/W/256 .114 Belize drew Members' a ttention to its 
recommendations regarding the implementation of Action 4 in document G/SPS/GEN/1290 , and 
encouraged Members to give those recommendations due consideration. Nigeria noted the 
difficulties that private standards created for its small exporters and reported on training received 
from GLOBAL GAP.115 Nigeria stressed that the SPS Committee had a vital role to play in addressing 
the issues related to private standards and their impact on international trade.  
17.13.   Several Members noted the importance of sensitizing private standard -setting entities and 
actors and reported on efforts undertaken at the national level. Members who were already 
communicating with private standard -setting entities in their territories were encouraged to share 
their experiences in that regard. The Philippin es reported on regional and national briefing sessions 
jointly organized by the Department of Agriculture and the United Nations Forum on Sustainability 
Standards (UNFSS). China referred to its submission ( G/SPS/GEN/1261 ) on Action  4, and noted that 
some Members were already communicating with private entities in their territories involved in the 
development, application and certification of private standards.  
17.14.   The Dominican Republic referred to its notification G/SPS/N/DOM/51  regarding the 
requirement for all enterprises certifying compliance with Good Agricultural Practices to register with 
the Department of Food Safety of the Ministry of Agriculture.  
17.15.   On Action 5, the Secretariat referred to various relevant examples relating to the 
collaboration between the S PS Committee and the three sisters to develop and/or disseminate 
informative materials on the importance of international standards. In particular, the Secretariat 
highlighted: (i) the usefulness of the STDF film on Trading Safely; (ii) the joint regional 
SPS workshops with the three sisters; as well as (iii) the development of a new e -learning module 
with the Inter -American Development Bank.  
17.16.   The IPPC noted that all IPPC communications, including its standards, were available in its 
six official languages. The IPPC continued to raise the awareness of its members on the issue of 
private standards, and would address any future appearance of private standards in the plant health 
area. The OIE noted that all its publications were available in its three official languages and that 
any further translation, while encouraged, was at the discretion of the end -user. The OIE also noted 
that it constantly emphasized the importance of adopting and adhering to international standards. 
Some Members noted the importance of i ncreased awareness about the operations of private 
standard -setting bodies, and referred to the OIE resolution guiding OIE's relations with private 
standard -setting bodies. The collaboration of both Codex and OIE with private standard -setting 
bodies was en couraged in order to foster the development and implementation of science -based 
food safety and other standards, whether official or private. It was further suggested, in particular 
by Argentina, that Codex, OIE and IPPC liaise directly with the various pr ivate schemes identified by 
Members in document G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 . Such contact could then inform the three sisters' 
efforts in developing and/or disseminating materials underlying the importance of international 
standards. The Secretariat noted that this suggestion had b een reflected in the relevant Chair 
 
111 JOB/TBT/41/Rev.1 , JOB/TBT/42  and JOB/TBT/42/Corr.1 , and G/TBT/GEN/144  and 
G/TBT/GEN/144/Add.1 . 
112 https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_forum16_e/public_forum16_e.htm . 
113 G/SPS/GEN/1261 . 
114 G/SPS/GEN/1290 . 
115 G/SPS/GEN/1398 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 33 - 
 
  summaries, which in turn were reflected in the Secretariat's regular reports on relevant Committee 
activities, including the consideration of private standards, to the IPPC's CPM, the OIE World 
Assembly of Delegates and the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  
17.17.   Codex also reported on its continued effort to underline the importance of implementing 
international standards and on its communication strategy to show the positive impact of applying 
Codex standards. Codex also noted t he cooperation of the OIE and IPPC in that regard.  
17.18.   Regarding other information on SPS -related private standards, Belize reported on the 
19th session of the Joint FAO/WHO Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean 
held in Costa Rica in Novem ber 2014. Belize referred Members to paragraphs 161 to 166 of Codex 
document REP/15/LAC for further details of the discussions and of the recommendations made at 
the meeting.  
17.19.   The OECD flagged its upcoming report on voluntary environmental standards which f ocused 
on the linkages between voluntary (often private) environmental standards and public policies.116 
17.4  Other suggested actions  
17.20.   The Committee also discussed how to address the seven outstanding proposed actions on 
which consensus had not been reached. Some Members suggested moving forward on outstanding 
Actions 6 to 12 through a voluntary working group. However, other Members indicated that they 
were not prepared to work on those actions where there had been no consensus.  
17.21.   Regarding Action 6, some Members were of the view that private standards are outside the 
scope of the SPS Agreement and thus related information exchanges should take place on the 
margins of the Committee meetings. Others, however, believed that private standards did fall within 
the jurisdiction of the SPS Committee and that information exchange on these issues should be on 
the agenda of the Committee.  
17.22.   Belize drew Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1291 , which flagged the need to 
consider Actions 6 to 12 in parallel with those in document G/SPS/55 , and which also provided 
specific recommendat ions for the implementation of Actions 10 and 11. Belize also noted that IICA's 
report on private food standards in the Southern Cone ( G/SPS/GEN/1100 ) contained several 
recommended actions for the Committee and/or governments to ad dress concerns associated with 
SPS-related private standards. With regards to Action 10, Belize encouraged Members to review the 
TBT Code of Good Practice and determine its applicability for the implementation of the action. 
On Action 11, Belize encouraged  Members liaising with entities involved in private standards to share 
their experience with the Committee as the approaches used could be considered in the 
implementation of Action 11.117 Belize supported by several Members, expressed concerns regarding 
the proliferation of private standards and how these affected market access and stressed the 
relevance of addressing the issue of private standards in the SPS Committee.118 
17.5  Other activities in relation to private standards  
17.23.   On other matters related to private st andards, Belize registered its concern regarding the 
evolution in food safety certification requirements, as governments were responsible for setting 
SPS measures, with guidance from international standards.119 Belize noted that a country's 
appropriate level  of protection should not be set by the private sector, and stressed that the 
SPS Committee had a vital role to play in addressing the issues related to private standards and 
their impact on international trade. Belize also reported on an UNEP regional cap acity building 
workshop on food waste and noted that data from pilot studies showed significant losses being 
incurred by producers due to overly stringent food safety requirements. Belize reported that 
UNEP  was communicating with retailers on the impact of  stringent requirements, and the related 
food wastage, with the hope that they applied requirements only to the extent necessary.  
17.24.   In 2014, the ITC presented the most recent version of its online "Standards Map", an 
interactive web -tool which provides infor mation on over 130 private and public voluntary standards, 
 
116 G/SPS/GEN/1399 . 
117 G/SPS/GEN/1291 . 
118 G/SPS/GEN/1240 . 
119 G/SPS/GEN/1374 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 34 - 
 
  across 700 different criteria of analysis. The ITC confirmed that the terminology of "voluntary 
standards" and the schemes identified in the Standards Map encompassed both government and 
private vo luntary standards, but these could be separated through a dedicated search. In relation 
to the concern expressed about the multiplication of testing and costs for producers, as well as the 
proliferation of private schemes, ITC confirmed that it had been co nsulted by ISEAL and GIZ120 
regarding the development of a Sustainability Standards Comparison Tool. The tool was being 
developed and should be piloted by the end of 2014.  
17.25.   Some Members also provided other information under the agenda item on private and 
comm ercial standards. In July 2016, China reported that it was in the process of drafting a paper on 
'Best Practice Guidelines regarding Private Standards' and invited interested Members to contribute. 
Some Members welcomed China's proposal, while others queri ed China's interpretation of Article 13, 
and also whether drafting a paper on best practices was the best means of advancing work.  
17.26.   In November 2017, Belize informed the Committee of its participation in a government to 
government meeting held in Texas, Uni ted States in February 2017, with the support of FAO. At  this 
meeting, Belize delivered an intervention on "Existing models of collaboration between public and 
private sectors and the risk of obfuscating roles in the governance of food safety". Subsequent 
discussions had highlighted some examples of the successful use of third -party certification schemes 
to complement the work of governments in ensuring food safety. Belize  suggested that the 
Committee could benefit from similar discussions, either through a workshop or thematic session, 
where Members could volunteer to share their diverse perspectives and experiences.121 
Some  Members expressed their willingness to consider the suggestion of the thematic session, 
subject to views from their capitals, and without prejudice to their previously stated positions on 
private standards.  
17.27.   In July 2018 , Belize informed the SPS Committee of its participation in government to 
government, and government to business meetings held in Japan in March 2018, with the supp ort 
of FAO. On the margins of the Food Safety Conference, Belize expressed its concerns on issues 
related to private and commercial standards, and their negative impact on exporting companies in 
Belize. Belize stated that since concerns with private and co mmercial standards had first been raised 
in the SPS Committee in 2005, the following points had been noted by the private sector: (i) audits 
to maintain certification continued to be done annually by the certification bodies; (ii) audits by 
buyers were now  at an average of two per annum; (iii) financial costs associated with the audits 
continued to be the sole responsibility of the exporting company; (iv) the scientific basis for some 
requirements continued to be lacking; and (v) MRLs and limits for microbi ological contaminants were 
still not aligned with those of Codex.  
17.28.   Belize referred to  the Committee Decision on "Actions Regarding SPS -Related Private 
Standards", as contained in G/SPS/55 , and encouraged Members to: (i) continue discussions with 
the certification programme owners and buyers in o rder for them to understand the impact of their 
requirements; (ii) advise certification programme owners and buyers on the importance of basing 
SPS requirements on science and applying them only to the extent necessary; (iii) encourage 
participation in the  Codex standard -setting process so as to assist certification programme owners 
and buyers to align their requirements; and (iv) encourage the provision of technical support, 
especially to those developing countries where the standards were being applied an d exporters were 
most negatively affected.  
17.29.   Finally, Belize reminded Members of the legal obligations contained in Article 13 of the 
SPS Agreement, and in particular drew Members' attention to the second and third sentences of 
Article 13. Belize further expressed a  need for the development of guidelines for the implementation 
of Article 13, especially given the increased role of the private sector, and urged the Committee to 
make an effort to initiate work in that regard. Belize also noted the work being un dertaken in the 
Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) on 
"Guidance for Authorities to Assess Third Party Assurance and its Potential to Inform National Food 
Control System Planning", indicating its hope tha t this would serve as a catalyst to advance the 
Committee's work and influence the development of guidelines for the implementation of Article 13.  
17.30.   Argentina and Brazil expressed their interest in the topic. Argentina further indicated that it 
would careful ly assess the points made by Belize. Ecuador recalled that the Committee' discussions 
 
120 International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL); and Deutsche 
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).  
121 G/SPS/GEN/1592 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 35 - 
 
  on private standards had continued for some time and that document G/SPS/55 , which had been 
adopted by the Committee in March 2011, continued to apply. Ecuador further noted that the 
application of standards an d measures by private entities could have a disproportionate effect on 
trade for goods produced and exported by developing countries. Ecuador indicated that it continued 
to be interest ed in discussing this topic in the Committee in order to reach an agreem ent on the best 
way to regulate these types of standards and to ensure compliance with Article 13 of the SPS 
Agreement.  
17.31.   In 2018 and 2019, the Committe e discussed proposals submitted by Belize  for the 
development of guidelines for implementation of Article 13,122 and on voluntary third -party 
assurance schemes.123  
18  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND TRAINING ACTIVI TIES (ARTICLE 9)  
18.1  Technical assistance  
18.1.   Technical assistance is a standing agenda item. At each regular meeting, Members and 
Observers are invited to identify any specific technical assistance needs which they may have, and/or 
to report on any SPS -related capacity building activities in which they are involved.  
18.2.   A number of Members have used the occasion of the SPS Committee meetings to comment 
on particular projects  or activities that have enhanced their capacity to implement and benefit from 
the SPS Agreement. Some Members provide periodic updates regarding their SPS -related technical 
assistance activities, in particular Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan and the United 
States.124 
18.3.    In 2016, Australia provided information on its technical assistance to developing countries 
from July 2013 to June 2015. The aggregate value of the official development technical assistance 
during the reporting period exceeded AUD 35 million.125 In 2019, Australia further reported on the 
technical assistance provided to developing countries between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2017. The 
aggregate value of the official development technical assistance provided exceeded AUD $46 million 
and, Australia also provided substantial additional in -kind contributions.126 
18.4.   In 2017, the European Union reported on its SPS -related activities during the period 
2015-2016.127 In 2020, the European Union provided information for the period 2017 -2018.128 In 
total, over 5 00 projects were fully, or partially, devoted to SPS technical assistance. The  document 
also included contributions made to the three sisters and the STDF.  
18.5.   Japan informed the Committee about its SPS -related technical assistance provided ove r 
several periods. More recently, the total value of the assistance provided for the Japanese fiscal year 
2018 amounted to approximately JPY 630 million (US$5.7 million), with an accumulated amount of 
Japanese assistance since 1 April 2009 of approximately  JPY 6.8 billion (US$61 million).129 In total, 
81 relevant programs had been undertaken since 1 April 2009, to more than 50 countries in various 
regions, including Asia, the Pacific Region, Central America, South America, Central Asia, and Africa. 
This assis tance had been carried out by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).  
18.6.   Canada provided an overview of its technical assistance activities delivered to developing 
countries.130 Canada indicated that it had delivered or initiated 19 SPS -related techn ical assistance 
projects in 2018, targeting 21 countries in various geographic regions and amounting to 
 
122 G/SPS/W/306 . 
123 G/SPS/W/316  and G/SPS/W/320 . See the section on voluntary third -party assurance schemes in 
Part A of the Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3 ), which provides additional detai ls 
on the substance of the submitted proposals and the subsequent discussions.  
124 Contributions made by Members between January 2014 and December 2019 are listed in Appendix 
B, sections C.1 and C.2. The appendices are available via the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/tables_e/G_SPS_W_313_Appendix_A -D.xlsx . 
125 G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.5 . 
126 G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.6 . 
127 G/SPS/GEN/113 9/Add.4 . 
128 G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add. 5. 
129 G/SPS /GEN/1160/Add .7. See also earlier versions of G/SPS/GEN/1160 . 
130 G/SPS /GEN/1584  and G/SPS/GEN/1738 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 36 - 
 
  approximately US$7.99 million. This assistance addressed three of the four broad categories 
included in G/SPS/GEN/206 , namely: information, training, and 'soft' infrastructural devel opment.  
18.7.   The United States also reported on its sponsored technical assistance provided to developing 
and newly acceding countries to support their implementation of the SPS Agreement, from 
October  2014 to September 2016 ;131 and October 2016 to September 2018 .132 The United States 
highlighted various bilateral and regional capacity building activities, and indicated its commitment 
to provide demand -driven, results -oriented and sustainable programmes. The United States further 
welcomed input on the type of projec ts that would be of interest to Members, and looked forward to 
continuing its capacity building efforts, and cooperating with the STDF on cross -cutting SPS 
programmes.  
18.8.   In addition, other Members provide such information on an ad hoc basis. For example, in 
2017, Burkina Faso, Chile, the Gambia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Paraguay, Senegal, Togo 
and Zambia provided technical assistance -related information. In 2018, Belize, Japan, Madagascar, 
Nigeria and Senegal provided information, and in 2019, Burkina  Faso, Chile, and Senegal also 
informed the Committee on technical assistance -related activities.  
18.9.   The WTO Secretariat, as well as observer organizations,133 also regularly report on their 
assistance activities. WTO's technical assistance activities in the SP S area increase participants' 
awareness about rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement and its implications at the national 
level. In the organization of SPS technical assistance activities, the levels of familiarity with the 
Agreement and advancemen t in its implementation are taken into consideration to meet and respond 
to individual country/regional needs. The programmes of national/regional activities include 
presentations on the transparency obligations, dispute settlement, implementation problems , 
specific trade concerns and technical/scientific issues such as risk analysis and equivalence, as well 
as the work undertaken by the three sisters.  
18.10.    Each year, a three -week advanced course on the application of the SPS Agreement provides 
in-depth and "ha nds-on" SPS training, where at the end of the course participants must elaborate 
an 'action plan' to address identified SPS needs in their countries. Progress on the implementation 
of the action plans is then monitored through periodic reporting and is pre sented at an eight -day 
follow -up session the subsequent year. The Secretariat also offers an E -Learning Course on the 
SPS Agreement.134 A revised version of the Course will be available soon.  
18.11.   Since 2010, Members have been informed at the beginning of each ye ar of all SPS -related 
planned technical assistance activities and interested officials are invited to submit applications for 
specific events. The latest revision of G/SPS/GEN/997  contains all the detailed information on 
eligibility criteria, deadlines, funding, pre -requisites and appl ication processes. Since 2013, an online 
application form135 has been used to solicit applications for SPS technical assistance activities.  
18.12.   In 2016, the Secretariat informed Members of its new approach to deliver more effective 
and demand -driven regional workshops, which would entail working collaboratively with regional 
organizations to address SPS -related training needs identified within various regions. Using this 
approach, the WTO Secretariat would schedule regional SPS workshops upon request from regional 
organizations, or from a Member in conjunction with a regional organization. Programmes, 
prerequisites and selection criteria would be defined for each requested activity. Since 2016, regional 
SPS workshops have been organized using this appr oach.  
18.13.   Every year, the Secretariat organizes a thematic workshop held back -to back with one of 
the meetings of the SPS Committee. In addition, the SPS Committee holds thematic sessions on 
topics of relevance to the Committee, as necessary, throughout the ye ar. Table 1 summarizes the 
thematic sessions and workshops carried out during the period under Review (i.e. January 2014 to 
December 2019).  
 
131 G/SPS/GEN/18 1/Add.12 . 
132 G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.1 3. 
133 Contributions made by observer organizations between 2014 and 2019 are listed in Appendix C. The 
appendices are available via the following link: 
https://www .wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/tables_e/G_SPS_W_313_Appendix_A -D.xlsx . 
134 More information on these training tools and materials is available on the SPS webpage 
(http://www.wto.org/sps ). 
135 This application form is acc essible via a web link, which is included in the latest revision of 
G/SPS/GEN/997 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Table 1: Overview of thematic sessions and workshops (2014 -2019)136 
Year Thematic workshops  Thematic sessions  
2014 ▪ Workshop on Risk Analysis   
2015 ▪ Workshop on Transparency  ▪ Thematic Session on Risk Communication  
2016 ▪ Workshop on Pesticide Maximum 
Residue Levels (MRLs)   
2017 ▪ Workshop on Transparency  ▪ Thematic Session on Notification of 
Trade -facilitating SPS Measures  
▪ Thematic Session on Regionalization  
2018 ▪ Workshop on Control, Inspection 
and Approval Procedures  ▪ Thematic Session on Pest -Free Areas   
▪ Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 1)  
2019 ▪ Workshop on Transparency and 
Coordination  ▪ Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 2)  
▪ Thematic Session on Fall Armyworm  
▪ Thematic Session on Approval Procedures  
18.14.   In 2014, the Secretariat organized a Workshop on Risk Analysis.137 This workshop was based 
on a proposal submitted by the United States, in the context of the Fourth Review.138 The United 
States had proposed that the Committee should organize a workshop on decision making and 
communication during the risk analysis process to build upon the previous workshop held in 2000. 
The workshop also addressed South Africa's proposal,139 which consisted of two questions related to 
the implementation of Article 5.4 of the SPS  Agreement.  
18.15.   In 2015 and 2017140, the Secretariat organized interactive "hands -on" workshops on the 
transparency provisions  of the SPS Agreement. The participation of officials from Members' SPS 
Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities was particularly encouraged in these training workshops.  
18.16.   In 2016, the Secretariat organized a Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels 
(MRLs).141  
18.17.   Members submitted various proposals for the topic of the July 2018 workshop: (i)  Private 
and commercial standards ( G/SPS/GEN/1592 ); (ii) Control, inspection and approval procedures (i.e. 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement); and  (iii) Export certification. Several Members expressed their 
support for the topic of control, inspection and approval procedures (i.e. Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement). Some Members indicated interest in the topic of export certification and further 
suggeste d including export certification as one of the sessions in the workshop. The Thematic 
Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures (Annex C)  was held on 9 -10 July 2018.142  
18.18.   In June 2019, the Secretariat organized a Thematic SPS Workshop on Transpa rency and 
Coordination.143  
18.19.   Also in 2019, Canada proposed to hold a Thematic Session on Approval Procedures144, 
building upon the 2018 SPS Committee Workshop on Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures 
(Annex C). The Thematic Session on Approval Procedures was held in November 2019.145 
18.2  Technical assistance statistics  
18.20.   The Secretariat reports annually on all SPS -related technical assistance activities provided 
by the WTO Secretariat since September 1994.146 For the period 1994 to 2019, the WTO Secretariat 
 
136 In order to provide a general overview of the various topics that have been discussed in Committee -
related activities during the period, Table 1 includes information on thematic sessions, although this type of 
activity is not strictly linked to technical assistance.  
137 See section 15 for further information on the Thematic Workshop on Risk Analysis.  
138 See G/SPS/W/275 . 
139 See G/SPS/GEN/1307 . 
140 See section 19.5 for further information on 2015 and 2017 Workshops on Transparency.  
141 See section 12.1 for further information on the 2016 Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels 
(MRLs).  
142 See section 3 for further information on the 2018 Thematic Workshop on Control, Inspection and 
Approval Procedures (Annex C).  
143 See section 19.5 for further information on the 2019 Thematic SPS Workshop on Transparency and 
Coordination.  
144 G/SPS/W/310 . 
145 See section 3 for further information on the Thematic Session on Approval Procedures.  
146 G/SPS/GEN/521 , latest revision.  G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 38 - 
 
  has undertaken a total of 3 96 technical assistance activities on the SPS Agreement, including 95 
regional (or sub -regional) and 183 national seminars. Table 2 provides information about the 
number of sub -regional and national activities per year since the last review of the operation and 
implementation of the SPS Agreement. Table 3 shows the overall number of activities per region 
since 1994.  
Table 2: Number of SPS technical assistance activities provided by  the Secretariat 
between January 2014 and December 2019  
Year Type of Activity  Total  
National 
Seminar  (Sub)Regional 
Workshop  Other  
2014 14 3 13 30 
2015 13 3 11 27 
2016 9 4 6 19 
2017 12 1 9 22 
2018 10 3 4 17 
2019 8 0 4 12 
Total  66 14 47 127 
 
Table 3: SPS technical assistance activities per region (199 4-2019)  
Region  Type of Activity  Total  
National 
Seminar  (Sub)Regional 
Workshop  Other  
Africa  57 29 21 107 
Arab and Middle East Countries  18 10 5 33 
Asia and the Pacific  41 19 22 82 
Central and Eastern Europe and 
Central Asia  16 8 7 31 
Europe  1 3 7 11 
Latin America and the Caribbean  50 26 9 85 
North America  - - 1 1 
Global  - - 46147 46 
Total  183 95 118 396 
 
18.3  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  
18.21.   The STDF is a global partnership that helps developing countries improve their food safety, 
and animal and plant health capacity to meet SPS requirements for trade  that are  based on 
international standards. The STDF contributes to broader sustainable development goals, such as 
enhanced economic growth, poverty reduction and food security. Established by the UN Food and 
Agriculture Organization, the World Organisation for Animal Health, the World Bank Group, the World 
Health Organization and the WTO, the STDF is financed by voluntary contributions. It provides a 
platform that brings together stakeholders from across agriculture, health, trade and development 
to discuss SPS capacity building needs, share experiences and good practice, and leverage additional 
funding. In add ition, the STDF provides seed funding to beneficiaries for the development and 
implementation of collaborative and innovative SPS projects , with the potential to influence and 
catalyse SPS  improvements. The WTO houses the Secretariat and manages the STDF t rust fund.148 
18.22.   From 2014 -2019, the STDF organized several thematic events on the margins of the 
SPS Committee to provide information to Members on several cross -cutting SPS issues. A list of 
STDF thematic sessions from 2014 -2019 can be found below.  
 
147 This category also includes the Advanced SPS Course.  
148 More information on the STDF and its activities, including projects and project preparation grants, is 
available on the STD F website ( http://www.standardsfacility.org ). Members can also subscribe to the STDF 
mailing list to receive news on relevant activities.  G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Implementi ng SPS Measures to 
Facilitate Safe Trade  
 
 
 
 
March 2014  Presentation of preliminary findings and recommendations of three 
regional studies conducted in Africa, Asia and Latin America related 
to the implementation of SPS measures to facilitate safe trade, with 
a focus on Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreemen t (Control, 
Inspection and Approval Procedures).  
 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/facilitating -safe-trade 
Prioritizing SPS Investments for 
Market Access (P -IMA) 
 
 
 
March 2016  Information session on the P -IMA framework, its guiding principles 
and the new User Guide, as well as experiences and results of its 
application in several countries.  
 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/prioritizing -sps-investments -
market -access -p-ima  
Electronic SPS Certification  
 
 
 
June 2016  Information session to raise awareness of the opportunities and the 
challenges related to the implementation of electron ic SPS 
certification systems, mainly in developing countries.  
 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/SPS -eCert   
Options, costs and the feasibility of 
foot-and-mouth disease control in 
the context of livestock trade  
 
 
 
 
 
November 2017  Information session to present findings on the costs, benefits and 
feasibility of the following studies:  
▪ Feasibility of establishing a fresh meat producing compartment in 
Zimbabwe (STDF/PPG/550)  
▪ Cost-Benefit An alysis for establishing a Foot -and-Mouth Disease 
Free Zone or Compartment in Tanzania (STDF/PPG/516)  
 
http://www.standardsfacility.org/costs -and-benefits -fmd-control -
context -livestock -trade 
Strengthening the control of 
transboundary animal diseases in 
Cameroon  
 
 
 
March 2019  Information session to present outputs, impact and 
recommendations of the STDF project on the development of 
strategies to combat and control four animal diseases which affect 
livestock production in Cameroon (STDF/PG/336): (i) foot and  mouth 
disease, (ii) peste des petits ruminants, (iii) African swine fever, and 
(iv) Newcastle disease.  
 
https://www.standardsfacility.org/information -session -cameroon   
Strengt hening capacity to meet 
pesticide export requirements  
 
 
 
 
November 2019  Information session to present the findings and recommendations of 
an independent evaluation of the three regional STDF projects in 
Africa (STDF/PG/359, led by AU -IBAR), Asia (STDF/PG/337, led by 
the ASEAN Secretariat) and Latin America (STDF/PG/436, led by 
IICA).  
 
https://www.standardsfacility.org/strengthening -capacity -meet-
pesticide -export -requirements   
 
18.23.   From 2014 -2019, the STDF developed and launched two short films which were shown to 
the SPS Committee: "Safe Trade Solutions" and "Cocoa: a Sweet Value Chain". The first film looks 
at what Chile, Colombia and Peru have  done to enable trade to flow faster across borders, while also 
ensuring the safety of imported food and preventing the entry of pests or diseases. The second one 
showcases how in today 's global value chain, sanitary and phytosanitary capacity helps to mak e 
sure that cocoa plants are free from pests and diseases and that chocolate is safe for consumers. 
Both films along with other STDF -related videos can be found on the STDF YouTube channel.149 
18.24.   As part of its role to share available know -how and SPS -related g ood practice, the STDF 
regularly issues briefing notes on issues of interest. Between 2014 -2019, the STDF released briefing 
notes on the following topics:  
 
149 https://www.y outube.com/c/STDFvideos . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Enhancing SPS capacity to promote 
trade for development in LDCs  
 
March 2016  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_no
12_EN.pdf   
Inclusive Trade Solutions: women in 
SPS capacity building  
 
November 2017  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_no
te_13.pdf   
Partnering with the private sector: 
delivering SPS outcomes  
 
February 2017  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_No
te_15.pdf   
Facilitating safe trade: going paperless 
with SPS e -certification  
 
July 2017  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/e_Cert_Briefing_n
ote_EN.pdf   
SPS capacity evaluation tools in action  
 
October 2017  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_14
.pdf  
Facilitating safe trade: protecting 
health, reducing SPS trade costs  
 
July 2018  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/Briefing_Facilitati
ng_safe_trade.pdf   
Promoting safe trade, protecting the 
environment  
 
October 2018  http://standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/Environment_Briefing_
2018.pdf   
Driving better decision -making: 
Prioritizing SPS investments for 
market access (P -IMA) 
 
January 2019  http://standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/PIMA_Briefing_2019.pd
f  
Trade spillover effects: the impact on 
domestic food safety  
 
April 2019  https://standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_Note_T
rade_Spillovers_En.pdf   
 
18.25.   In 2016, the STDF began focusing on increasing the use of electronic SPS certificates, in the 
context of paperless trade and the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. In 2019, the STDF Working 
Group created an SPS eCert advisory committee which currently consi sts of 11 relevant international 
organizations . Its objective is to exchange information on relevant eCert initiatives, facilitate linkages 
and synergies among these initiatives, and to maximize outputs and avoid duplication on efforts.  
18.26.   In 2018, the STDF initiated work on creating a guidance document and practical checklist on 
the use of Good Regulatory Practice (GRP).150 This work aims to provide guidance for developing 
countries to ensure that SPS measures are "fit for purpose" and that they avoid the crea tion of non -
tariff barriers. It will seek to identify good practices and recommendations to enhance the 
development and implementation of SPS measures . It will aim specifically to: (i) strengthen the 
effectiveness of regulatory interventions; (ii) increase  use of international standards and 
implementation of the SPS  Agreement; and (iii) ensure health protection while facilitating trade. A 
peer review group of STDF members and relevant organizations (including OECD) is supporting this 
work. The Secretariat aims to present this work on the margins of a Committee meeting in 2021.  
18.27.   From 2014 -2019, the STDF continued to help developing countries in SPS planning and 
decision -making through application of the P -IMA151 framework. P -IMA is an evidence -based  
approach to inform and improve SPS planning and decision making, including mobilization of 
additional resources for SPS investments. P -IMA encourages public -private dialogue, boosts 
transparency and accountability, and improves the economic efficiency of investment decisions.  
 
150 http://www.standardsfacility.org/good -regulatory -practice . 
151 Prioritizing SPS Investments for Market Access. More information available at : 
https://www.standardsfacility.org/prioritizing -sps-investments -market -access -p-ima. G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 41 - 
 
  19  TRANSPARENCY (ARTICL E 7 AND ANNEX B)  
19.1  Online systems  
19.1.   Up-to-date information on SPS notifications, as well as Committee documents, specific trade 
concerns and Members' National Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities continues to b e available 
electronically via the SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS). This facilitates the conduct 
of searches according to specific needs and interests (product codes, geographic groups, etc.) and 
also the preparation of reports and summaries wh ich can be shared with interested stakeholders.  
19.2.   In March 2017, the Secretariat launched the new versions of the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS) and the Notification Submission System (SPS NSS). This formed 
part of a two -phase IT project to mode rnize the SPS IMS and NSS, which began in early 2015. In the 
first phase, the SPS NSS was developed and tested by a group of Members. During the 2015 October 
Workshop on Transparency , the Secretariat presented the improved online SPS NSS. Participants 
also had the opportunity to use a pilot version of the new system in a hands -on exercise. The second 
phase, which began in early September 2016, focused on enhancements to the SPS IMS, and the 
same pilot group was invited to test the new SPS IMS, along with a few new added volunteer 
Members. This second phase also included verifying the interoperability of the IMS and 
NSS applications.   
19.3.   The new systems are more user -friendly, correct "bugs" in the previous systems, and are 
based on updated technology in line wi th other in -house applications such as I -TIP and the TBT NSS. 
In particular, the new NSS also supports rich text format, which was a major limitation of the 
previous system for some Members. Several Members highlighted the advantages of using the online 
notification system, such as reducing errors and time required to fill -in and submit notifications.   
19.4.   In November 2016, the ePing notification alert system was officially launched, the result of a 
tripartite cooperation between the UN Department of Economic a nd Social Affairs (UNDESA), the 
WTO and the International Trade Centre (ITC). UNDESA built the pilot version of ePing as part of a 
trade capacity building project for least -developed countries. The WTO managed the depository of 
the SPS and TBT notification s and ITC brought significant experience in developing and maintaining 
online trade -related tools, targeted mainly at SMEs, and hosted the IT infrastructure and 
development. The tripartite cooperation was formalized through a memorandum of understanding, 
signed by the heads of the three organizations. The objective of this collaboration was to offer a 
publicly available, reliable, timely and sustainable service that would provide access to SPS/TBT 
notifications and that would facilitate dialogue amongst the  public and private sector in addressing 
potential trade problems at an early stage.  
19.5.   Several Members thanked the Secretariat and indicated the need to ensure that there was 
appropriate capacity building so that Members would be able to use the new systems.  Various 
suggestions were made to improve the features of the IMS and NSS, including a country -specific 
graphing tool to display notifications or STCs in the IMS . 
19.6.   In November 2019 , a series of significant enhancements to ePing was completed , with close 
collaboration between WTO, ITC and UNDESA.  The enhancements include a more dynamic and user -
friendly homepage/search page and an enhanced platform for Members to share follow up 
information on notifications, both at the national and international level.152  
19.7.   Also in 2019, t he 2011 edition of the Procedural Manual for NNAs and NEPs was revised to 
incorporate the improved SPS NSS and IMS platforms and the new ePing  alert system, as well as 
other general updates. Ms Sally Jennings from New Zealand, the original author of the manual, 
assisted in preparing the new revision. Burkina Faso, Chile, the Democratic Republic of Congo, 
Jordan, Madagascar and New Zealand submit ted case stories for the Manual.  The Secretariat also 
drew the Committee's attention to the suggested change in the title of the manual from "Procedural 
Step-by-Step Manual for SPS NNAs and NEPs" to "Practical Manual for SPS NNAs and NEPs".  In 
addition, the Secretariat prepared a brochure providing an overview of the transparency tools 
 
152 These changes to ePing will also facilitate one of the recent recommendations of the T BT Committee 
for Members to share their comments on notifications with each other ( G/TBT/41 ). 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 42 - 
 
  detailed in the Practical Manual  (SPS IMS, ePing, Documents Online, e -subscription, and the 
SPS NSS).153 
19.8.   Detailed user guides for the SPS NSS and IMS are also currently under p reparation. 
These  guides will be shared with Members before being published on the transparency t oolkit link of 
the SPS Webpage.  
19.9.   Also i n 2019 , the WTO Secretariat updated Members on the eAgenda  project launched at the 
end of 2018, supported by the WTO Information Technology Solutions Division (ITSD) and carried 
out for both the TBT and SPS sections. eAgenda was the development of an online platform to help 
Members add interventions under any age nda item, including rais ing and support ing STCs, and to 
access the whole agenda ahead of SPS and TBT Committee meetings. Access to the platform would 
be restricted to Members. eAgenda built upon the existing tools for the online submission of 
notifications  (SPS NSS and TBT NSS ); and the online information management systems  (SPS IMS 
and the TBT IMS ). 
19.10.   In addition, the Secretariat explained that t he pilot phase of the SPS platform was planned 
for the March 2020 Committee meeting and Members were invited to co ntact the Secretariat to 
express interest in participating in the pilot test.  The Secretariat underlined that the eAgenda 
platform could be used to prepare an annotated agenda and invited Members' comments on the 
proposal to produce an annotated agenda ins tead of a convening airgram in the future. No Member 
raised any concerns.   
19.11.   A detailed user guide for the eAgenda  is also currently under preparation and will be shared 
with Members before being published on the transparency toolkit link of the SPS Webpage.  
19.2  E-mail lists 
19.12.   At the end of November 2017, the two e -mailing lists managed by the SPS team, one for 
notifications and another for unrestricted documents, were discontinued. Members continue to 
receive SPS documents through the new e -Subscriptions service. Access to this new service is 
restricted to delegates, who can obtain credentials though the delegation coordinator at their Geneva 
mission. Alternatively, SPS documents and notifications are available through WTO Docs Online or 
the SPS IMS. Additionally, it is possible to receive alerts on new SPS and TBT notifications through 
the ePing alert system.  
19.13.   On 1 December 2019 , the hosting  services provided by UNICC  for the SPS mailing list were 
discontinued and a new distribution list was created for the purposes of sending SPS -related 
information. Delegates covering SPS matters , as well as representatives from international 
organisations , were  invited to register throu gh a weblink  (https://wto.formstack.com/forms/spslist ) 
in order to continue to receive relevant information  via e-mails from the Secretariat . 
19.3  "Technical Revision" of  the Recommended Transparency Proce dures  
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3 ) 
19.14.   In Novem ber 2017, the Secretariat announced a "technical revision" of the Recommended 
Transparency Procedures; document G/SPS/ 7/Rev.3 . The current version of the document contained 
outdated references to the online tools (SPS NSS, SPS IMS), other websites and outdated notification 
templates wh ich were no longer in use since the WTO had updated its document formats in 2013. 
It also contained references to outdated practices for submitting notifications, for example by regular 
mail, or by fax. The revised version of the document was circulated af ter the SPS Committee meeting 
for comments by Members. No substantive changes to the Recommended Procedures were made , 
although the revised document now included the text and the notification format from the Procedure 
to Enhance Transparency of Special and  Differential Treatment in favour of Developing Country 
Members154, in order to consolidate all notification recommendations into one document . 
The Secretariat suggested a timeline for Members to comment on the proposed changes before the 
finalization of the  revised document.  
 
153 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_practical_manual_for_sps_national_notification_fly
er_bat.pdf . 
154 G/SPS/33/Rev.1 . G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 43 - 
 
  19.15.   Following the submission of comments by Members, the document was finalized and 
circulated in June 2018 as G/SPS/7/Rev.4 . 
19.4  Update on implementation of transparency provisions  
19.16.   Managing information on transparency remains challenging for many developing country 
Members, and many have flagged their need for assistance and support to resolve their individual 
transparency difficulties, for example with the process of sending notifications to the WTO. Other 
difficulties faced by developing country Members relate to t he operation of their SPS National 
Notification Authority and their National Enquiry Point(s). In addition, the importance of Members 
updating information on their Enquiry Points and Notification Authorities was highlighted, as it 
assisted the process of c ommunicating with trading partners.  
19.17.   The Secretariat also continues to provide annual updates on the level of implementation of 
the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement; the latest was issued in October 201 9.155 As of 
31 December  2019, Members had sub mitted 1 7,253 regular notifications and 2,259 emergency 
notifications (plus related addenda and corrigenda).156 The Committee has also previously adopted 
a special format and recommended procedures for the notification of determination of the recognition 
of equivalence of sanitary or phytosanitary measures, now included in the transparency procedures . 
Furthermore, the Secretariat has previously established a mechanism for Members to inform each 
other of the availability of translations of notified measures in to one of the official languages of the 
WTO. These are submitted in the form of supplemental notifications.  As of 31 December 2019 , seven 
equivalence notifications (five of which in 2019) and 19 supplemental not ifications had been 
circulated.  
19.18.   Out of the 16 4 WTO Members, 12 8 (78%) had submitted at least one SPS notification to the 
WTO. Members which had not submitted any notification so far include 1 2 developing countries, 
15 LDCs, and one developed country. In addition, a number of EU  member States have not  
submitted notifications; however, most SPS measures are notified by the European Union on behalf 
of all its member States.157 
19.19.   As can be seen in Chart 6, the share of regular notifications (not including addenda and 
corrigenda) submitted by developing country Members (excluding LDCs) between January 2014 and 
December 2019 is 67% while the share of those submitted by developed country Members is 29%, 
reflecting the stead y increase in notifications from developing country Members over the years. 
A very small share  (4%) comes from LDCs.  
Chart 6 – Percentage of notifications submitted by Members, according to development 
status , between January 2014 and 31 December 2019  
 
19.20.   Under the SPS Agreement, Members are required to notify both an Enquiry Point to provide 
answers to all reasonable questions from interested Members and a National Notification Authority 
 
155 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.12 . 
156 Members had also submitte d 5,692 addenda and 5,111 corrigenda to regular and emergency 
notifications. In total, 25,741 notifications had been submitted (including addenda and corrigenda).  
157 See G/SPS/GEN/456  and G/SPS/GEN/456/Corr.1  for notification procedures for the European Union 
and its member States.  
Developed
29%
Developing
67%LDC
4%G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 44 - 
 
  to implement the notification procedures detailed in the Agreement. As of 31 Decem ber 2019 , 159 
WTO Members out of 164 had designated a "Notification Authority". Those Members which had not 
yet done so are all  LDCs. Of the 164 WTO Members, 161 had provided the WTO with the contact 
information of their Enquiry Point(s). Those which had not done so were all LDCs. Thirty -four 
Members had also identified more than one SPS Enquiry Point. The updated lists containing the 
contact information of National Enquiry Points and of National Notification Authorities are available 
from the SP S IMS.158 
19.21.   At each meeting, Members are invited to raise any questions or concerns with regard to the 
implementation of the transparency provisions of the Agreement. Contributions made by Members 
between January 2014 and December 2019 are listed in Appendix B. Transparency regarding SPS 
measures and policies is also provided by Members' reporting on relevant activities and 
developments under the agenda item "Information Sharing", in addition to "Operation of 
Transparency Provisions". Members frequent ly use this opportunity to present information on new 
regulatory policies, risk assessment practices, establishment of national SPS coordinating 
committees, etc. The standard -setting observer organizations also provide relevant information 
under the agenda  item on "Information Sharing", further enhancing transparency.  
19.5  Proposals on transparency  
19.22.   In the context of the Fourth Review, the European Union, Chile, Morocco and Norway made 
submissions related to transparency.159 In particular, the joint proposal sugges ted that the 
recommended procedures be reviewed, with a view to improve such matters as: (i) the quality and 
completeness of the information provided in the notification; (ii) the timeliness of the publication of 
regular and emergency notifications; (iii) interactions with trading partners; and (iv) access to all 
measures adopted and proposed by a Member.  
19.23.   In addition, Chile, the European Union, Morocco and Norway submitted another proposal for 
actions related to the fulfilment of transparency obligations.160 They proposed that actions take two 
forms: (i) specific proposals for modifications in the Recommended Procedures for implementing the 
Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7)161; and (ii) recommendations to the 
Secretariat on revising and modernizing the SPS Information Management System and (SPS IMS) 
and Notificati on Submission System (SPS NSS).  
19.24.   A diagnosis of the needs and difficulties encountered by Members was first carried out 
through a questionnaire,162 in order to provide useful input before changing the current notification 
procedures. The responses to the questionnaire were analyzed,163 presented to the Committee and 
discussed in March and July 2015. The Secretariat subsequently prepared a factual compilation of 
existing WTO definitions  of "trade facilitating",164 in response to requests from respondents to the 
questionnaire on the need to further define the term "trade facilitating". The Secretariat further 
highlighted that no official WTO definition of the term "trade facilitating" or "t rade facilitation" had 
ever been adopted by WTO Members. Several Members expressed their interest in sharing their 
notification practices on the use of this term, rather than working on a definition.  
19.25.   Several other issues were highlighted from the analysis of the replies, such as: identification 
of the relevant international standard and whether there was conformity to such international 
standards; identification of HS Codes; emergency measures becoming permanent; measures 
notified after their adoption; and availability of translations. Members were of the view that the 
October Workshop on Transparency could be a good opportunity to share experiences and practices 
with regard to transparency, as well as to provide hands -on training on the SPS applications.  
 
158 Accessible at: http://spsims.wto.org/ . 
159 EU general communication, G/SPS/W/274 , and the joint submission by Chile, the European Union, 
Morocco and Norway, G/SPS/W/277 . 
160 G/SPS/W/278 . 
161 G/SPS/7/Rev.3 . Please note that G/SPS/7/Rev.4  was adopted in 2 018, as indicated in section 19.3.  
162 G/SPS/GEN/1382  was circulated on 2 February 2015.  
163 G/SPS/GEN/1402 . 
164 G/SPS/GEN/1417 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 45 - 
 
  19.26.   The objective of the 2015 Workshop on Transparency165 was to enhance the implementation 
and benefits of the transparency provisions, in particular by sharing national experiences, and 
through "hands -on" training on the testing platform for the new versions o f the SPS Information 
Management System (SPS IMS) and the Notification Submission System (SPS NSS). The workshop 
also included presentations on the WTO Integrated Trade Intelligence Portal (I -TIP),166 the ePing 
notification alert system167 and other tools to s ource WTO information. In addition, the Workshop 
provided an occasion to discuss issues related to a joint proposal for actions related to the fulfilment 
of transparency obligations,168 submitted in the context of the Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Imple mentation of the SPS  Agreement. The analysis of the replies to the transparency questionnaire 
circulated to assess the needs and difficulties of Members169 also provided further input for the 
discussions. In the 2015 Workshop on Transparency, participants en gaged in group discussions 
based on issues that had emerged from the analysis of the replies to the transparency questionnaire, 
and on how these could be addressed. Specifically, the following topics were discussed: (i) difficulties 
in filling in notificat ions; (ii) identifying trade facilitating measures; (iii) identifying and targeting 
interested stakeholders; (iv) handling comments; and (v) dealing with, and obtaining translations 
for, notified documents not in one of the WTO languages. Participants came  up with a number of 
innovative suggestions on how to handle these issues.  
19.27.   Following up on the 2015 Workshop  on Transparency , the Committee continued to discuss 
possible improvements in the area of transparency throughout 2016, including a joint proposal by 
Chile and the European Union.170 The proposal contains suggestions to facilitate sharing of unofficial 
translations of notified SPS measures, to discuss how Members decide which SPS regulations they 
notify as trade -facilitating measures, and to establish a central platform to share links to website 
where Members publish information about final SPS regulations. Some Members raised issues related 
to the accuracy of translations, liability, formality, restricted access and anonymity. The Committee 
also agreed  to hold an experience -sharing session on notification of trade facilitating measures in 
March 2017.  
19.28.   The Committee continued its discussions on the joint submission by Chile and the 
European  Union in 2017.  The Secretariat provided information on the transparency requirements 
under the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the mechanisms to publish notified information, which 
Members had requested to evaluate synergies with the proposal to create a platform to pub lish final 
regulations. In addition, the Secretariat presented the file -sharing feature of the ePing notification 
alert system, which could be used to share unofficial translations, and also briefly described the 
current mechanism for sharing unofficial tr anslations, highlighting paragraph 28 of the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures ( G/SPS/7/Rev.3 ).171 The Secretariat observed that this 
mechanism had rarely been used and further illustrated different options used to share translations 
through these supplements, including one option whic h allowed for anonymity.  
19.29.   Many Members recognized the usefulness of sharing translations, in particular for developing 
countries with limited resources, while they also expressed divergent views on some of the issues 
such as preserving anonymity, ensuring t he accuracy of translations, and on the desirability of using 
existing resources versus developing a new platform. Overall, Members indicated the need for more 
time to assess the proposal, while reiterating their interest in continuing the discussions.  
19.30.   In March 2017, the Committee held its Thematic Session on Notification of Trade -Facilitating 
Measures, based on the joint proposal submitted by the European Union and Chile.172 173 The purpose 
of the session was for Members to present current practices in decidin g which regulations to notify 
as trade facilitating measures. The Secretariat provided an overview of the notification obligations 
 
165 The summary report of the 2015 workshop was circulated as G/SPS/R/80 . The programme 
(G/SPS/GEN/1446 ) and presentations from the workshop are available via the following link: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop_oct15_e/w kshop_oct15_e.htm .  
166 https://i -tip.wto.org . 
167 http://www.epingalert.org/ . 
168 Joint proposal submitted by Chile, the European Union, Morocco and Norway ( G/SPS/W/278 ), which 
built on two former proposals regarding transparency ( G/SPS/W/274  and G/SPS/W/277 ). 
169 Questionnaire cir culated in document G/SPS/GE N/1382 , and analysis of the replies to the 
questionnaire in document G/SPS/GEN/1402 . 
170 G/SPS/W/290 . 
171 Please note that this  corresponds to paragraph 2.23 in document G/SPS/7/Rev.4 . 
172 G/SPS/W/290 . 
173 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1544  and presentations are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop22march17_e.htm . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 46 - 
 
  of the SPS Agreement, specifically Article 7 and Annex B. In addition, the Secretariat explained the 
current recommendations according to paragraph 13 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3 .  
19.31.   The thematic session also benefitted from presentations from Chile, the European Union , 
and the United States , and from an intervention from  Canada.  In the concluding discussion, it was 
further noted that it would be useful to have an indica tion of the type of measures to be classified 
as trade facilitating. The suggestion was also made for Members to undertake in -depth analyses, 
similar to those presented. The  European Union highlighted that the intention of the session was not 
to formulate or agree on precise proposals to be adopted, but to allow for further reflection in order 
to perhaps revisit some of the ideas at a later stage, such as possibly within the context of the 2017 
Workshop on Transparency.  
19.32.   Likewise,  in October 2017, the Thema tic Workshop on Transparency174 was held , based on 
the same proposal  by the European Union and Chile .175 This workshop included a highly interactive 
"hands -on" training on the use of the improved SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS) 
and the online Notification Submission System (SPS NSS), which had been launched in 2017, as well 
as the ePing SPS/TBT notification ale rt system. 176 The workshop also provided a forum for discussion 
and experience -sharing on national consultation mechanisms for SPS regulations, and on other 
developments, challenges and practices in the area of SPS transparency. Presentations were made 
by the WTO Secretariat, the OECD, the World Bank, and developed and developing country Members.  
19.33.   In November 2018 , the Committee agreed to hold a Thematic SPS W orkshop on 
Transparency and Coordination in June 2019.177 The WTO funded the participation of 34 govern ment 
officials from developing country Members and Observers, selected from 109 applications, with the 
financial assistance of the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund (DDAGTF).178 The WTO 
covered the participation of four external speakers, and the Uni ted States and the African Union 
made it possible for eight and five participants, respectively, from Africa and Central America to 
attend the workshop and the meetings of the Committee. More than 150  participants attended the 
workshop, including Geneva  - and capital -based delegates and representatives from 
intergovernmental organizations. The objective of this workshop was to exchange experiences with 
transparency -related coordination, and with broader domestic coordination mechanisms.179 An area 
of focus wa s on the difference in scope between the SPS and TBT Agreements, and on notification 
of measures containing both SPS and TBT elements.180  
19.34.   The Secretariat provided an overview of the key SPS and TBT transparency provisions and 
reviewed the objectives and cov erage of the SPS and TBT Agreements, related discussions in the 
respective Committees and examples of measures notified under both Agreements. Brazil, Japan, 
Chinese Taipei, Canada and Uganda presented on their experience in implementing the transparency 
provisions with SPS/TBT notifications. The Secretariat, UNCTAD and ITC introduced several tools 
and sources of SPS/TBT information. Uganda, Australia, China and New Zealand shared their 
experience on transparency -related coordination. Representatives from t he WTO Secretariat, STDF, 
UNCTAD and Belize took part in a round table on guidance  and available tools for domestic 
coordination. Canada, Peru, Kenya, the United States and Senegal shared domestic coordination 
experiences. And finally, the African Union, E COWAS, IICA, Chile and APEC presented on 
regional/international initiatives to support domestic coordination.  
19.35.   In 2019, the United States noted that several Members had national policies to align their 
SPS regulations to those of the European Union, but did  not regularly notify proposed changes to 
the SPS Committee. The United States pointed to the low notification rate of the European Free 
 
174 The programme in available in docu ment G/SPS/GEN/1 568/Rev.2  and the report was circulated as 
G/SPS/R/89 . The presentations are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshopttranparency_oct17_e.htm . 
175 G/SPS/W/290 . 
176 http://spsims.wto.org ; https://nss.wto.org/ ; https://www.epingalert.org/ . 
177 The programme is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1694/Rev.2  and the report was circulated as 
G/SPS/ R/96. Presentations from the Thematic Workshop are also available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/workshop15072019_e.htm . 
178 Since 2016, WTO -funded workshop par ticipants are no longer sponsored to participate in the SPS 
Committee meetings, in addition to their attendance at the workshop.  
179 See submission by  Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, 
Nigeria, the United States of  America and Zambia contained in G/SPS/W/297 . More information on this 
proposal can be found in part A of the document.  
180 See submission by Brazil contained in G/SPS/W/312 . 
 G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Trade Association (EFTA) and invited Members with national policies aligned with EU SPS measures 
to review their notifi cation practices to ensure that other WTO Members had the opportunity to 
comment on changes to their SPS regulations . Colombia appreciated the inclusion of this item on 
the agenda and Paraguay and Uruguay expressed their concern.  
19.36.   Switzerland and Norway exp lained their relationship with the European Union concerning 
SPS measures.   
19.37.   In 2018 and 2019, the Committee discussed the proposals submitted on notification 
procedures and transparency under the Fifth Review.181 
_______________  
  
 
181 G/SPS/W/300  and G/SPS/W/312 . See the section on notification procedures and transparency in Part A 
of the Report of the Fifth Review (i.e. document G/SPS/W/313/Rev. 3), which provides additional details on the 
substance of the submitted proposals and the subsequent discussions.  G/SPS/W/313/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
- 48 - 
 
  APPENDIX  
Appendices A to D provide a list of documents from January 2014 to December 2019  and are 
accessible via the following weblink:  
https://www.wto.org/english/tra top_e/sps_e/tables_e/G_SPS_W_313_Appendix_A -D.xlsx . 
Specifically, Appendix A provides a list of Secretariat background documents and other meeting 
documents. Appendix B provides a list of documents submitted by Members that are relevant to the 
various issu es raised in this Background Document. Appendix C similarly provides a list of documents 
submitted by observer organizations. Appendix  D provides information about SPS -related dispute 
settlement activities.  
The tables of contents for the appendices are as follows:  
 
▪ APPENDIX A: Secretariat background documents and other meeting documents, 2014 -2019 
A. Transparency  
B. Monitoring International Standards  
C. Technical Assistance  
D. Implementation of the Agreement – Specific Trade Concerns /Ad Hoc Consultations  
E. Private Standards  
F. Regionalization  
G. Review of the SPS Agreement  
H. Equivalence   
I. Other  
 
▪ APPENDIX B: List of SPS Committee documents submitted by Members , 2014-2019 
 
A. Comments/Proposals regarding Transparency (Article 7 and Annex B)  
B. Comments/Proposals regarding monitoring the use of international standards 
(Article 3.5 and 12.4)  
No documents were submitted under this specific topic.  
C.1 Information regarding Members' provision of technical assistance and training 
activities182 (Article 9)  
C.2 Information regarding Members' technical assistance and training needs (Article  9) 
D. Comments/Proposals regarding special and differential treatment (Article 10)  
No documents were submitted under this specific topic.  
E. Comments/Proposals  regarding Risk Analysis  
F.1 Comments/Proposals regarding Regionalization (Article 6)  
F.2 Information regarding Members' experience related to Regionalization (Article 6)  
G. Comments/Proposals regarding Monitoring Implementation of the Agreement 
(Articles 12.1 and 12.2) – Specific trade concerns/Use of Ad Hoc Consultations  
H. Review of the Agreement  
I.  SPS-related private standards  
J.  Equivalence  
K. Other  
L.  Floor statements  
 
▪ APPENDIX C: List of SPS Committee documents submitted by observer organizations, 2014 -
2019 
 
▪ APPENDIX D - WTO disputes invoking the SPS Agreement  
 
 
__________  
 
182 This includes information on technical assistance provided by Mem bers in GEN documents submitted 
up to March 2020 , for technical assistance undertaken within the period of Review (i.e. 2014 -2019).