G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
4 May 2018  
(18-2797) Page: 1/56 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
REVIEW OF T HE OPERATION AND IMP LEMENTATION  
OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
DRAFT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT1 
Note by the Secretariat2 
INTRODUCTION  
Article 12.7 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("the 
Agreement") provides that "the Committee shall review the operation and implementation of this 
Agreement three years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement, and thereafter as 
the need arises". A Fi rst Review of the Agreement was completed in March 1999.3 
At the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Ministers instructed the Committee to review 
the operation and implementation of the Agreement at least once every four years.4 The Fourth  
Review  of the Agreement was completed in July 2017 .5 At its March 2018 meeting, the Committee 
adopted a procedure and timetable to undertake the Fifth Review of the Agreement.6 
This background document, following past practice , provides information regarding the  
implementation and operation of issues covered in previous Reviews.  In addition, this background 
document provides information on the Committee's work on risk analysis, and on the Catalogue of 
Instruments to Manage SPS Issues, undertaken in the context of  the Fourth Review.  This 
background document  also includes a section related to the Committee's recent work on cross -
cutting issues, in particular in relation on maximum residue limits for pesticides.  
 Monitoring the use of international standards (Article s 3.5 and 12.4);  
 Equivalence (Article 4);  
 Risk analysis: risk assessment (Article 5), risk management and communication ; 
 Consistency (Article 5.5);  
 Regionalization (Article 6);  
 Transparency (Article 7 and Annex B);  
 Technical assistance and training activities (Article 9);  
 Special and differential treatment (Article 10);  
 Dispute settlement activities (Article 11);  
                                                
1 This document reflects the work of the SPS Committee from January 2014 until December 2017, 
unless stated otherwise.  
2 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to th eir rights and obligations under the WTO.  
3 G/SPS/12.  
4 WT/MIN(01)/17 . 
5 G/SPS/62.  In accordance with the procedures for the Fourth Review, the Committee considered the 
revised report of the Review for adoption  for the first time  at its October 2014 meetin g. After submission of 
Members' comments and suggestions, as well as further discussions in several Committee meetings, the report 
was subsequently adopted in July 2017 . As such, t he report of the Fourth Review largely reflects the work of 
the Committee as  of October 2014, except where stated otherwise . 
6 G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 2 - 
 
   Implementation of the Agreement (Articles 12.1 and 12.2) – Specific trade concerns;  
 Implementation of the Agreement (Article 12.2) – Use of  ad hoc consultations;  
 Cooperation with Codex Alimentarius, International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and 
the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (Article 12.3);  
 Good regulatory practice;  
 SPS-related Private Standards;  
 Catalogue of instrume nts to manage SPS issues ; and  
 Cross-cutting issues  (Pesticide MRLs) . 
For ease of reference, this draft background document includes the recommendations from the 
Fourth Review  in the relevant sections . However, this  is not intended to  prejudge the discussio ns 
that will take place under the Fifth Review , or its outcome . Members will have an opportunity to 
discuss the structure of the report of the Fifth Review , and the desired process for its preparation . 
Information presented in this document, particularly i n sections 6 and 10, has been retrieved from 
the SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS: http://spsims.wto.org ). The categories of 
level of development and the geographical groupings  of Members  are based  on the WTO IDB 
reference database ( idb@wto.org ). 
Appendix A of this document provides a  list of Secretariat background documents and other 
meeting documents  from January 2014 to December 2017 . Appendix B provides a list of 
documents submitted by Members since January 2014 that are relevant to the various issues 
raised in this Background Document. Appendix C similarly provides a list of documents submitted 
by Observer  Organization s since January 2014. Appendix  D provides i nformation about SPS -
related dispute settlement activities.  
 G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Table of contents  
Page 
1   MONITORING THE USE O F INTERNATIONAL STAN DARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 AND 
12.4)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  4 
2   EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE  4) ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
3   RISK ANALYSIS: RISK ASSESSMENT (ART. 5),  RISK MANAGEMENT AND 
COMMUNICATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  6 
4   CONSISTENCY (ARTICLE  5.5) ................................ ................................ ......................  7 
5   REGIONALIZATION (ART ICLE 6)  ................................ ................................ .................  8 
6   TRANSPARENCY (ARTICL E 7 AND ANNEX B)  ................................ .............................  10 
6.1   Online Systems and E -mail Lists  ................................ ................................ ................... 11 
6.2   "Technical Revision" of G/SPS/7/Rev.3  ................................ ................................ .......... 12 
6.3   Update on Implementation of Transparency Provi sions ................................ .................... 12 
6.4   Proposals on Transparency  ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 
7   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND TRAINING ACTIVIT IES (ARTICLE 9)  ..........................  15 
8   SPECIAL AND DIFFEREN TIAL TREATMENT (ARTI CLE 10)  ................................ ..........  20 
9   DISPUTE SETTLEMENT  ................................ ................................ ...............................  21 
10   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E AGREEMENT – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS ..................  22 
11   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E AGREEMENT – USE OF AD HOC CONSUL TATIONS  ..........  26 
12   COOPERATION WITH THE  CODEX, IPPC AND OIE  ................................ ....................  27 
13   GOOD REGULATORY PRAC TICE  ................................ ................................ ................  27 
14   SPS-RELATED PRIVATE STAN DARDS  ................................ ................................ ....... 27 
14.1   Background  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 28 
14.2   Action 1 - Definition  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..28 
14.3   Actions 2 to 5  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 29 
14.4   Other suggested actions  ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 
14.5   Other activities in relation to private standards  ................................ ............................. 31 
15   CATALOGUE  OF INSTRUMENTS  ................................ ................................ ................  32 
16   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES (PEST ICIDE MRLS)  ................................ ..........................  33 
16.1   Pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs)  ................................ ................................ ....33 
APPENDIX A – SECRE TARIAT BACKGROUND DO CUMENTS AND OTHER ME ETING 
DOCUMENTS, 2014 -2017  ................................ ................................ ................................  36 
APPENDIX B: LIST OF SPS COMMITTEE DOCUME NTS SUBMITTED BY MEM BERS 
2014 -2017  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  41 
APPENDIX C: LIST OF SPS COMMITTEE DOCUME NTS SUBMITTED BY OBS ERVER 
ORGANIZATIONS 2014 -2017  ................................ ................................ .........................  47 
APPENDIX D - WTO DISPUTES INVOKIN G THE SPS AGREEMENT ................................ .... 50 G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MONITORING THE USE O F INTERNATIONAL STAN DARDS (ARTICLES 3.5 AND 12.4)  
Recomme ndations resulting from the Fourth  Review:  
• The Committee should continue to monitor the use of international standards at each of its 
regular meetings (G/SPS/11/Rev.1). It should continue to review the monitoring procedure 
as part of the periodic reviews o f the SPS Agreement, as foreseen in the Decision to Modify 
and Extend the Provisional Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization.7 
• Members are encouraged to provide information regarding their experiences, or lack thereof, 
in the imple mentation of international standards (Articles 3.5 and 12.4).  
• Members should ensure their full implementation of the transparency provisions of the SPS 
Agreement, and to the extent possible, follow the recommended procedures established by 
the Committee (G /SPS/7/Rev.3), including those relating to the notification of measures 
conforming to international standards.  
 
1.1.  Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement require the Committee to develop a procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization a nd the use of international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations. The Committee initially adopted a monitoring procedure in 1997, 
which was revised in November 2004.8 In June 2006, the Committee decided to extend this 
procedure indefinitely, and to re view its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the 
operation and implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.  
1.2.  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.9 
1.3.  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.10 Chile reaffirmed the need to revise the 
monitoring procedure under Article 12.4 to address the problems of developing countries that f ind 
it difficult to attend the three sisters' meetings and therefore lack information on the extent to 
which international standards are being applied.  
1.4.  In 2015, several new issues were raised under the monitoring procedure: (i) the United 
States' concern o n 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 d iscuss ed regarding the United States' concerns on HPAI restrictions not consistent with 
the OIE international standard . 
1.5.  In 2016, several previously raised  issues were  discussed : (i) the United States' concerns 
regarding BS E restrictions not consistent with the OIE International Standard ; (ii) the United 
States' concerns regarding IPPC phytosanitary certificate requirements for processed food 
products; (iii) Argentina's concerns regarding measures on bovine semen and reprodu ctive 
material more restrictive than the OIE Standard; ( iv) Senegal's concerns regarding the application 
of ISPM 13 on notifications of non -compliance;  (v) the United States' concern regarding the  use of 
the Codex international standard on glyphosate; and (vi) the United States' concern regarding  
HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE International Standard.  
1.6.  In 2017,  several new concerns were raised by the United States relating to: (i)  Codex 
guidelines and principles for official certification requi rements ; (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 is sues were discussed: (i) Argentina and the United States'  concerns on the use 
                                                
7 G/SPS/40, paragraph 2.  
8 G/SPS/11/Rev.1.  
9 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.  
10 G/SPS/GEN/1344.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 5 - 
 
  of the Codex international standard on glyphosate; (ii) Burkina Faso and Senegal's concerns 
regarding the application of ISPM 13 on notifications of non -compliance; (iii) the Uni ted States' 
concern regarding BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard; (iv) the 
United States' concerns regarding IPPC phytosanitary certificate requirements for processed food 
products; and (v) the European Union and the United  States' concerns regarding HPAI restrictions 
not consistent with the OIE international standard. Codex submitted a report which provided 
additional information on glyphosate.11 
2  EQUIVALENCE (ARTICLE  4) 
Recommen dations resulting from the Fourth  Review:  
• The Committee should maintain equivalence as a standing item of the agenda for its regular 
meetings.  
• Members are encouraged to provide information regarding their experiences, or lack thereof, 
in the implementation of Article 4 and in the use of the guidance d eveloped by the 
Committee (G/SPS/19/Rev.2). In particular, Members are encouraged to notify any 
agreement reached on the recognition of equivalence in accordance with the agreed 
procedure.  
• The relevant international organizations are invited to keep the Co mmittee informed of any 
work they undertake with regard to the recognition of equivalence.  
 
2.1.  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 200412 and the agreement that 
equivalence would be a standing agenda item for the regular meetings of the Committee.  
2.2.  Under this agenda item, in 2015 , Codex informed Members about its new work on guidance 
for the monitoring of the performance of national food control systems. Codex noted that the 
product of this work would not replace th e 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.  
2.3.  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 .13 Senegal 
thanked China, the African Union and SPS standards organizations for supporting this equivalence 
initiative. China noted that it considered this equivalence agr eement 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, Malaysia and Viet Nam, and confirmed to its new 
trade partners that the same proce dures 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 implementation of their bilateral agreement which was now in its 
second year.  
2.4.  Also 2016, Madagascar informed Members about the equivalence arrangements in place with 
regard to fishery products , specifically noting that the regulatory measures applied by its 
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 me asures  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 for their particular comments on cooperation on SPS 
requirements regarding their exports of groundnuts and shrimp to China.  
                                                
11 G/SPS/GEN/1577/Add.1 . 
12 G/SPS/19/Rev.2.  
13 G/SPS/GEN/1461.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.5.  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 equivalence. The Secretariat 
noted that a specific notificat ion 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 thereof, should be submitting the notification.  
2.6.  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 equivalent. Madagascar a cknowledged that the effort to bring its measures into 
conformity had improved the access of Malagasy fresh lyche es to the South African market.  
3  RISK ANALYSIS: RISK ASSESSMENT (ART. 5),  RISK MANAGEMENT AND 
COMMUNICATION  
3.1.  In the context of the Fourth Review, the United States proposed the  organization of a 
Workshop on Risk Analysis.14 The United States noted that since the last workshop on this topic in 
2000, a significant amount of work must have been carried out by Members and the Three Sisters. 
Many Members supported the proposal and pro posed that a session on risk communication be 
included in the programme.  
3.2.  In 2014 meeting, 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 t he 
appropriate level of protection (ALOP), submitted in the context of the Fourth Review.15 
One Member proposed that the issue of special and differential treatment should also be taken into 
account when establishing the ALOP. The Committee agreed to addres s 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.  
3.3.  The Secretariat developed a programme for the workshop based on the US proposal a nd 
inputs from Members. 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 risk analysis area.  
3.4.  The Work shop on Risk Analysis was held on 13 -14 October 2014. It provided a platform for 
discussion, exp erience sharing and best practic es concerning SPS -related risk analysis. Delayed 
streaming of the workshop was made possible through a partnership with IICA. Th e presentations 
made at the workshop, as well as audio clips are available on the WTO website.16 
3.5.  In 2015, the United States presented a submission on possible next steps.17 Its proposal 
focused on three key challenges identified by Members at the workshop, a nd 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, f or instance thr ough 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.  
3.6.  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 Sessio n on Risk Communication in 
July 2015 received broad support. FAO and IPPC expressed interest in participating in the thematic 
                                                
14 G/SPS/W/275.  
15 G/SPS/GEN/1307.  
16 The summary report of the Risk Analysis Workshop was circulated as G/SPS/R/77. The programme, 
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 . 
17 G/SPS/GEN/1401.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 7 - 
 
  session. FAO also provided information  on recent work done in this area,18 in particular the 
development of a handbook on risk communication.  
3.7.  In 2015, the Committee held its first thematic session , on risk communication,19 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 lessons 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 process of risk analysis. However, it had now been widely 
accepted that the risk analysis process involved risk assessment, risk management and r isk 
communication. S everal panellists - representing Codex, IPPC, OIE, FAO, IICA and the United 
States – responded to a series of questions on the existing guidance in the area of risk 
communication.  In addition, speakers from both developing and developed  countries highlight ed 
the specific risk communication strategies that had been employed in r esponse to pressing 
SPS issues.  
3.8.  Later in  2015, the United States presented a compendium on practical resources that 
Members could access on risk communication.20 Recalling the significant interest in risk 
communication during the 2014 Workshop on Risk Analysis and the thematic session held in 2015, 
the United States had compiled a list of useful information and strategies collected from various 
international organiza tions, 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.  
3.9.  In 2016, IICA informed the Committee of the approval of a resolution entitled "Working 
Group to Improve the Capabilities of the Countries of the Americas f or Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Risk Assessment" at the 18th meeting of the Inter -American Board of Agriculture (IABA) , held in 
October 2015. IICA planned to  establish a working group comprised of relevant regional 
organizations and also  to organize a meetin g in Costa Rica to discuss current approaches to risk 
assessment; national and regional challenges; capacity building needs and risk assessment; and 
strategies for improving the capacities of member countries and organizations. The result of the 
meeting wo uld be a document explaining the current state of SPS risk analysis, and areas that 
need improvement, as well as proposed solutions to address deficiencies. IICA thanked Brazil for 
its interest and support for the development of this initiative.  Brazil tha nked 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.  
3.10.   In 2017, the Russian Federation repo rted 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 organization s and representatives of FAO, WHO, WTO and Codex. Leading scientists and 
experts 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, foo d 
contamination and capacity building.  
4  CONSISTENCY (ARTICLE  5.5) 
Recommendations resulting from the Fourth  Review:  
• Members are encouraged to provide information regarding their experiences in the 
implementation of Article 5.5 and in the use of the guidelin es (G/SPS/15).  
• As foreseen in the Guidelines to further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5 and in the 
Third Review, the Committee should continue to review these guidelines as part of the periodic 
reviews of the SPS Agreement.21 
                                                
18 G/SPS/GEN/1405.  
19 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 . 
20 G/SPS/GEN/1456 . 
21 Introduction, G/SPS/15 and paragraph 14, G/SPS/53.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.1.  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 experience s in this regard under 
the Agenda Item "Information from Members on Relevant Activities ". 
5  REGIONALIZATION (ART ICLE 6)  
Recommendations resulting from the Fourth Review:  
• The Committee should maintain regionalization as a standing item of the agenda for its 
regular meetings.  
• Members are encouraged to provide information on their experiences in the implementation 
of Article 6, including on the use of the Guidelines adopted by the Committee in that regard 
(G/SPS/48).  
• The observer organizations are invited to ke ep the Committee informed of their activities 
relevant to the recognition of pest - or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or disease 
prevalence.  
 
5.1.  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 four 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;22 (ii) the second one covering the period from April 2014 
throu gh March 2015;23 (iii) the third one covering the period from April 2015 through March 
2016;24 and (iv) the fourth one covering the period from April 2016 through March 2017.25 
5.2.  Both the IPPC and the OIE have provided guidance for countries seeking to establis h, 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.26 
5.3.  The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code describes the requirements for obtaining di sease -free 
status including requirements for surveillance and monitoring based on the concept of geographic 
zones. During its annual General Sessions , the OIE has adopted a number of resolutions related to 
recognition of disease -free areas.  In 2015, the OI E adopted the revised standard on foot and 
mouth disease . In addition, a specific provision relating to the BSE standard was added to the 
Terrestrial Code. In 2016, the OIE adopted the amendment of the user guide to clarify that zoning 
and compartmentaliza tion 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. 27 
                                                
22 G/SPS/GEN/1333 . 
23 G/SPS/GEN/1412.  
24 G/SPS/GEN/1491.  
25 G/SPS/GEN/1552  and G/SPS/GEN/1552/Corr.1 . 
26 For more information on the IPPC's work, see Appendix C.  
27 For more information on the OIE's work, see Appendix C.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 9 - 
 
  5.4.  In the 2015 meeting, the OIE provided information on the relevance of the OIE standards 
and related procedures in relation to two recent WTO disputes.28 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 functionin g of the SPS Agreement. These aspects 
included, among others: the implementation of adopted standards and participation in the 
development of these standards; access to expertise and knowledge of scientists from the OIE's 
global network of reference centre s and laboratories; and development of standards and guidance 
on regionalization.  
5.5.  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 und erscored 
its commitment to providing financial assistance to the OIE in order to facilitate broad participation 
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.  
5.6.  In 2016, t he OIE tabled a report29 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).30 The OIE highlighted its official 
endorsement of na tional disease control programmes currently provided with regard to FMD, PPR 
and CBPP.  
5.7.  In 2017, the Committee held a Thematic Session on Regional ization based on a proposal 
submitted by the European Union.31 The purpose of the thematic session32 was to provi de an 
opportunity for Members to increase their awareness of regionalization principles, and to learn 
from each other by sharing experiences about the challenges  and benefits, of implementing 
regionalization in practice from the perspective of an importing , as well as a n exporting party. In 
particular, the thematic sessio n focused on animal diseases.  The workshop benefitted from 
presentations on the relevant provisions of t he SPS Agreement  (Article 6), guidelines (G/SPS/48), 
as well a s jurisprudence from re cent disputes. In addition, the OIE provided an  overview of its 
standards on zoning and compartmentalization,  including implementation c hallenges and 
opportunities in applying the regionalization approach. Members shared their experiences on the 
practical implementation of regionalization in dealing with diseases such as highly pathogenic 
avian influenza, BSE, classical swine fever, as well as more general experiences in applying the 
regionalization principle. Discu ssions 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 c ommon 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 bir ds should not 
change a country's disease status and, as such, should not result in trade restrictions.  
5.8.  Chile requested clarification on  the OIE's  plan for monitoring international standards . The OIE 
explained that it was still in the early stages of its wo rk with the OECD to develop a framework to 
monitor the national implementation of OIE standards.  Chile also  suggested that the Committee 
organize a nother  thematic session on regionalization with a specific focus on plant health.  Several 
Members supported t his suggestion. The  United States further  suggested developing a deeper 
exchange with the OIE on a regular basis, as the OIE's info rmation was so valuable.  
5.9.  Also i n 2017, t he United States encouraged Members to actively use the agenda on 
regionalization to share experiences on challenges encountered and successes achieved in applying 
                                                
28 G/SPS/GEN/1438.  
29 G/SPS/GEN /1499.  
30 A detailed list of countries, 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.  
31 G/SPS/W/293 . 
32 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 . G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 10 - 
 
  the principles of regionalization to facilitate 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 avenue to focus on regionalization; (ii) to further the discussion within the Committee by 
holding future thematic sessions or workshops t o 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;33 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 Members to provide possible ideas on how to build on the 
discussion held in July 2017 on regionalization. The United States offered to pre sent a short 
proposal for the next Thematic Session on Pest-Free Areas for Members' comments, if there was 
interest.  
5.10.   The European Union welcomed the United States proposal and highlighted the importance of 
continuous work on regionalization, possibly withi n the framework o f the Fifth Review. 
The European Union considered favourably the proposal to hold a Thematic Session on Pest -Free 
Areas in February 2018. The European Union was also interested in observing cases where 
regionalization had been useful and w here it had failed to address trade concerns. With regards to 
the suggestion on guidance or best practices, the European Union 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 this matter.  Chile also supported the US suggestions.  
5.11.   The OIE provided information on its Scientific Enquiry Commission proposal regar ding 
emergency, preventive and temporary zoning in response to increased disease threats, avoiding 
unjustified barriers to trade.34 An ad hoc group had 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 
progress and constraints faced in the implementation of OIE standards.  
6  TRANSPARENCY (ARTICL E 7 AND ANNEX  B) 
Recommendations resulting from the Fourth  Review:  
• The Committee should maintain transparency as a standing item of the agenda for its regular 
meetings.  
• Members should ensure their full implementation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement,  and to the extent possible, follow the Recommended Procedures established 
by the Committee in G/SPS/7/Rev.3.  
• Developing country Members should clearly identify specific problems they face in 
implementing the transparency provisions of the Agreement. Assis tance should be provided 
to least -developed and developing country Members, and to their National Notification 
Authority and Enquiry Points, as required, in order to enable them to fully implement the 
transparency provisions and to make use of the benefits  associated with transparency.  
• Recognizing that the Recommended Procedures established by the Committee 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3), while not creating legal obligations, can facilitate Members' 
implementation of the provisions of the SPS Agreement, the Committee shou ld consider, as 
appropriate:  
o Specific proposals for modifications in the Recommended Procedures for implementing 
the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7), taking into account 
Members' difficulties in implementing them; and  
o Recommendati ons to the Secretariat to take into account when revising and 
modernizing the SPS Information Management  System  (SPS IMS) and Notification 
Submission System (SPS NSS).  
                                                
33 This session was held on 27 February 2018 ; the programme is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1596/Rev.1  
and presentations  have been made  available  at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop27feb18_e.htm .  
34 G/SPS/GEN/1583 . G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 11 - 
 
  6.1  Online Systems and E -mail Lists  
6.1.  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 be 
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 which can be shared with interested 
stakeholders.  
6.2.  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  moderniz e 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 Membe rs. During the 
2015 October Transparency Workshop, 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 Septembe r 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.  
6.3.  The new systems are more user -friendly, correct "bugs" in the previous system s, and are 
based on updated technology in line with 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 fil l-in and submit 
notifications.  
6.4.  In November 2016, the ePing noti fication alert system was officially launched, the result of a 
tripartite cooperation between the UN Department of Economic and 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 notifications and ITC brought significant experience in developing and 
maintaining online trade -related tools, targeted mainly at SMEs, and hos ted 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, tim ely 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.  
6.5.  Several Members thanked the Secretariat and indicated the need to ensure that there was 
appropriate capacity building in order to ensure 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 . 
6.6.  The 2011 edition of the Procedural Manual for NNAs and NEPs  is currently  being 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, 
assist ed in preparing the new revision. Burkina Faso, Chile, the Democratic Republic  of Congo, 
Jordan, Madagascar and New Zealand submitted  case stories  for the Manual . 
6.7.  Detailed user guide s for the SPS NSS and IMS are also currently under preparation. 
These guide s will be shared with Members  before being published on the transparency t oolkit link 
of the SPS Webpage.  
6.8.  At end of November 2017, the two e-mailing lists  managed by the SPS te am, one for 
notifications and another for unrestricted documents , were  discontinued. Members can continue to 
receive SPS documents through the new e -Subscriptions service. Access to this new service is 
restricted to delegates, who can obtain credentials th ough 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.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 12 - 
 
  6.2  "Technical Revision" of G/SPS/7/Rev.3  
6.9.  In November  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 which 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 after the SPS Committee meeting for comments by Members. No substantive changes to 
the Recommended Procedures were made. The Secretariat suggested a timeline for Member s to 
comment on the proposed changes before the finalization of the revised document . 
6.3  Update on Implementation of Transparency Provisions  
6.10.   Managing information on transparency remains challenging for many developing country 
Members, and many have flagged th eir 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 the operation of their SPS Nationa l 
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 communicating with trading partner s. 
6.11.   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 2017 .35 As of 
15 September 2017, Members had submitted 14,633 regular notifications and 1,978 emergency 
notifications (plus related addenda and corrigenda).36 The Committee has also previously adopted 
a special format and recommended procedures for the notification of determination of the 
recognition of equivalence of sanitar y 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 into one of 
the official  languages of the WTO. These are submitted in the form of supplemental notifications. 
As of 15 September 2017, two equivalence and 19 supplemental not ifications had been circulated.  
6.12.   Out of the 164 WTO Members, 125 (76%) had submitted at least one SPS notification to the 
WTO. Members which had not submitted any notification so far include 14  developing countries, 
16 LDCs, and one developed country. In addition, a number of EU  member States have not 
submitted notifications; however, most SPS measures are noti fied by the European Union on 
behalf of all its member States.37 
6.13.   As can be seen in Chart 1, the share of notifications submitted by developing country 
Members (excluding LDCs) reaches 55% while the share of those submitted by developed country 
Members is 44 %, reflecting the steady increase in notifications from developing country Members 
over the years. A very small share comes from LDCs.  
                                                
35 G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10 . 
36 Members had also submitted 4,876 addenda and 401 corrigenda to regu lar and emergency 
notifications. In total, 21,888  notifications had been submitted (including addenda and corrigenda) . 
37 See G/SPS/GEN/456 and G/SPS/GEN/456/Corr.1 for notification procedures for the European Union 
and its member States.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Chart 1 – Development status of notifying Members as of 31 December 2017  
 
 
6.14.   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 
to implement the notification procedures detailed in the Agreement. As of 15 September 2017, 
156 WTO Members out o f 164 had designated a "Notification Authority".  Those Members which had 
not yet done so include six LDCs and two developing country Members. Of the 164 WTO Members, 
161 had provided the WTO with the contact information of their Enquiry Point (s). Those whi ch had 
not done so were all  LDCs. Thirty Members ha d 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 SPS IMS.  
6.15.   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 
since 2014 are listed in A ppendix 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 frequently 
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.  
6.4  Proposals on Transparency  
6.16.   In the context of the Fourth Review, the European Union, Chile, Morocco and Norway made 
submissions related to transparency.38 In particular, the join t proposal suggested 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 noti fications; (iii) interactions with trading partners; and (iv) access to 
all measures adopted and proposed by a Member.  
6.17.   In addition, Chile, the European Union, Morocco and Norway submitted another proposal for 
actions related to the fulfilment of transpare ncy obligations.39 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)40; and (ii) recommendations to the 
                                                
38 EU general communication, G/SPS/W/274, and the joint submission by Chile, the European Union, 
Morocco and Norway, G/SPS/W/277.  
39 G/SPS/W/278, dated 26 May 2014.  
40 G/SPS/7/Rev.3.  
44%
55%1%
Developed Developing Least-developedG/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Secretariat  on revising and modernizing the SPS Information Management System and (SPS IMS) 
and Notificati on Submission System (SPS NSS).  
6.18.   A diagnosis of the needs and difficulties encountered by Members was first carried out 
through a questionnaire,41 in order to prov ide useful input before changing the current notification 
procedures. The responses to the questionnaire were analyzed,42 presented to the Committee and 
discussed in March and July 2015. The Secretariat  subsequently  prepared a factual compilation of 
existin g WTO definitions of "trade facilitating",43 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 offi cial WTO definition of the term "trade fa cilitating" or "trade 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.  
6.19.   Several other issues were highlighted f rom 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 the ir 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 tr aining on the SPS  
applications.  
6.20.   In the 2015 Transparency Workshop,44 participants engaged in group discussions based on 
issues that had emerged from the analysis of the replies to the transparency questionnaire, and on 
how the se could be addressed. Specifically, the followi ng topics were discussed: (i) difficulties in 
filling in notifications; (ii) identifying trade facilita ting measures; (iii) identifying and targeting 
interested stakeholders; (iv) handling comments; and (v) dealing with, and obtaining translations 
for, not ified documents not in one of the WTO languages.  Participants came  up with a number of 
innovative suggestions  on how to handle these issues.  
6.21.   Following up on the 2015 Transparency Workshop, the Committee continued to discuss 
possible improvements in the are a of transparency throughout 2016, including a joint proposal by 
Chile and the European Union.45 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, formali ty, restricted access and anonymity. 
The Committee also agreed to hold an experience -sharing session on notification of trade 
facilitating measures in March 2017.  
6.22.   The Committee continued its discuss ions 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 publish final 
regulations. In addition, t he 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 sharin g unofficial translations, highlighting paragraph 28 of the 
Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3 ). 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 which allowed for anonymity.  
6.23.   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 iss ues such as preserving anonymity, ensuring the 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.  
                                                
41 G/SPS/GEN/1382 was circulated on 2 February 2015.  
42 G/SPS/GEN/1402 . 
43 G/SPS/GEN/1417 . 
44 See section 7 for further information on this workshop.  
45 G/SPS/W/290.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 15 - 
 
  6.24.   In March 2017, t he Committee held its Thematic Session on Notification of Trade-Facilitating 
Measures,46 based on the joint proposal submitted by the European Union and Chile. The purpose 
of the session was for Membe rs to present current practices in deciding which regulations to notify 
as trade facilitating measures. The Secretariat provided an overview of the notification obligations 
of the SPS Agreement, specifically Article 7 and Annex B. In addition, the Secretar iat explained the 
current recommendations according to paragraph 13 of G/SPS/7/Rev.3.  The thematic session also 
benefitted from presentations from Chile, the European Union,  the United States and Canada. 
In the concluding discussion, it was further noted t hat it would be useful to have an indication 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 intent ion 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 Transparency Workshop.  
6.25.   In October 2017, the Transparency Workshop was held, which include d training on the use 
of the improved SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS) and the online Notification 
Submission System (SPS NSS)47, as well as the ePing SPS/TBT  notification alert sy stem. 
The workshop also provide d 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.48 
7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES  (ARTICLE 9)  
Recommendations resulting from the Fourth  Review:  
• The Committee should maintain technical assistance as a standing item of the agenda of its 
regular meetings.  
• Members requiring technical assistance are encouraged to identify their specific needs in a 
clear and detailed manner that will permit these needs to be effectively addressed.  
• Members providing technical assistance are encouraged to keep the Committee informed of 
specific programmes of assistance, including hard or soft infras tructure developments or any 
other technical assistance approaches.  
• Members are encouraged to report on the effectiveness of the technical assistance they have 
received to assist them in complying with international and official standards.  
• Members are invi ted to share information on their experiences regarding the use of the tools 
developed by the Secretariat to assist Members with the understanding and implementation 
of the SPS Agreement.  
• The Secretariat is requested to keep the Committee informed of its r elevant technical 
assistance activities and of the activities of the STDF.  
• The observer organizations are invited to keep the Committee informed of their capacity 
building activities relevant to the SPS Agreement.  
 
7.1.  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.  
7.2.  A number of Member s 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 .49 
                                                
46 The programme (G/SPS/GEN/1544) and presentations are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop22march17_e.htm . 
47 http://spsims.wto.org ; https://nss .wto.org/ . 
48 Additional information on this workshop is available in section 7 of this document.  
49 Contributions made by Members since 2014 are listed in Appendix B, tables C.1 and C.2.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 16 - 
 
  7.3.   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.50 
7.4.  In 2017, the European Union reported on its SPS -related activities during the period 2015 -
2016.51 In total, 400 projects were fully, or partially, devoted t o SPS technical assistance. 
The document also included contributions made t o the three sisters an d the STDF.  
7.5.  Japan informed the Committee about its SPS -related technical assistance  provided during the 
period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 . The total value o f the assistance amounted to 
approximately JPY 470 million (US$4.3 million), with an accumulated amount of Japanese 
assistance since 1 April 2009 of approximately JPY 5.5 billion (US$50 million).52 In total,  62 
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 assistance had been carried out by the Japan Internati onal Cooperation Agency (JICA).  
7.6.  Canada provided an overview of its technical assistance activities delivered to developing 
countries.53 Canada indicated that it had delivered or initiated 15 SPS -related technical assistance 
projects in 2016, targeting various geographic regions and amounting to approximately US$15.83 
million. This assistance addressed three of the four broad categories included in G/SPS/GEN/206, 
namely: information, training, and 'soft' infrastructural development.  
7.7.  The United States also reported on its sponsored technical assist ance provided to developing 
and newly acceding countries to support their implementation of the SPS Agreement, from October 
2014 to September 2016.54 The United States highlighted various bilateral and regional capacity 
building activities , and  indicated it s commitment to provide demand -driven, results -oriented and 
sustainable programmes . The United States  further welcomed input on the type of projects that 
would be of interest to Members , and looked forward to continuing its capacity building efforts, 
and c ooperating with the STDF on cross -cutting SPS programmes.  
7.8.  In addition, o ther 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 pro vided technical assistance -related information.  
7.9.  The WTO Secretariat, as well as observer organizations,55 also regularly report on their 
assistance activities. WTO's technical assistance activities in the SPS area increase participants' 
awareness about righ ts 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 advancement in its implementation are taken into considerati on 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.  
7.10.    Each year, a three -week advanced course on the application of the SPS Agreement 
provides in -depth and "hands -on" SPS training, where at the end of the cour se 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 presented 
at an eight -day follow -up session the subse quent year. The Secretariat also offers an E -Learning 
Course on the SPS Agreement.56 
7.11.   Since 2010, Members have been informed at the beginning of each year of all SPS -related 
planned technical assistance activities and interested officials are invited to subm it applications for 
                                                
50 G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.5 . 
51 G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.4 . 
52 G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.5 . 
53 G/SPS/GEN/1584 . 
54 G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.12 . 
55 Contributions made by observer organizations since 2014 are listed in Appendix C.  
56 More information on these training tools and material is available on the SPS webpage 
(http://www.wto.org/sps ). G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 17 - 
 
  specific events. The latest revision of G/SPS/GEN/997 contains all the detailed information on 
eligibility criteria, deadlines, funding, pre -requisites and application processes. Since 2013, an 
online application form57 has been used to solicit applications for SPS technical assistance 
activities.  
7.12.   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 
organizatio ns 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 organizatio n. Programmes, 
prerequisites and selection criteria would be defined for each requested activity.  Since 2016, 
regional SPS workshops have been organized using this approach.  
7.13.   Every year, the Secretariat organizes a thematic workshop held back -to back with o ne of 
the meetings of the SPS Committee. In 2014, the Secretariat organized a Workshop on Risk 
Analysis.58 This workshop was  based on a proposal submitted by the United States, in the context 
of the Fourth Review.59 The United States had proposed that the Co mmittee should organize a 
workshop on decision making and communication during the risk analysis process to build upon 
the previous workshop held in 2000.60 The workshop also addressed South Africa's proposal,61 
which consisted of two questions related to the implement ation of Article 5.4 of the 
SPS Agreement.  
7.14.   In 2015 and 2017, the Secretariat organized  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. The objective of 
the 201 5 workshop62 was to enhance the implementation and benefits of the transparency 
provisions, in particular by sharing national exper iences, and through "hands -on" training on the 
testing platform for the new versions of the SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS) and 
the Notification Submission System (SPS NSS). The workshop also included  presentations on the 
WTO Integrated Trade I ntelligence Portal (I -TIP),63 the ePing notification alert system64 and other 
tools to source 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,65 
submitted in the context of the Fourth Review of the Operatio n and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement. The analysis of the replies to the transparency questionnaire circulated to assess 
the needs and difficulties of Members66 also provided fu rther input for the discussions.  
7.15.   The 2017 Transparency W orkshop67 was a highly interactive "hands -on" training event 
focusing on the improved SPS IMS and NSS applications, which had been launched in 2017, as 
well as the ePing alert system. In addition, the workshop provided an open platform for discussion 
and sharing of national experiences , as well as best practices , in conducting public consultation s 
when developing SPS regulations . Presentations were made by the WTO Secretariat, the OECD, 
the World Bank, and developed and developing country Members.  
                                                
57 This application form is accessible via a web link, which is included in the latest revision of 
G/SPS/GEN/997.  
58 The summary report of the risk analysis workshop was circulated as G/SPS/R/77. The programme and 
presentations from t he workshop are available at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshop_oct14_e/wkshop_oct14_e.htm . 
59 See G/SPS/W/275.  
60 The programme and presentations fr om 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 . 
61 See G/SPS/GEN/1307.  
62 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/wkshop_oct15_e.htm . 
63 https://i -tip.wto.org . 
64 http://www.epingalert.org/ . 
65 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).  
66 Questionnaire circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1382, and analysis of the r eplies to the 
questionnaire in document G/SPS/GEN/1402.  
67 The summary report of the 2017 workshop was circulated as G/SPS/R/89. The programme 
(G/SPS/GEN/1568/Rev.2) and presentations from the workshop are available via the following link:  
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/wkshopttranparency_oct17_e.htm . G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 18 - 
 
  7.16.   In 2016, the Secretariat organized  a Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels 
(MRLs),68 which brought together officials for an in -depth session focusing on the relevant 
provisions of the SPS Agreement and related jurisprudence, as well as the Codex approach to 
establishing MRLs. The workshop also benefitted from presentations on various reg ional 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 insights 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 the various ways for the private sector to be 
involved in establish ing MRLs, such as by providing the relevant technical data. Several follow -up 
actions were proposed during the workshop, with a view to addressing various concerns related to 
pesticide MRLs.69 
7.17.   The Secretariat reports annually on all SPS -related technical as sistance activities provided 
by the WTO Secretariat since September 1994.70 For the period 1994 to 2017, the WTO 
Secretariat ha s undertaken a total of 386 technical assistance activities on the SPS Agreement, 
including 95 regional (or sub -regional) and 175  national seminars. Table 1 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 2 shows the overall number of 
activities per region sinc e 1994.  
Table 1: Number of SPS technical assistance activities  provided by the Secretariat  
Year Type of Activity  
Total  National 
Seminar  (Sub)Regional 
Workshop  Other  
2014 14 3 12 29 
2015 13 3 10 26 
2016 9 4 5 18 
2017 12 1 8 21 
Total  48 11 35 94 
 
Table 2: SPS technical assistance activities per region (199 4-2017)  
Region  Type of Activity  
Total  National 
Seminar  (Sub)Regional 
Workshop  Other  
Africa  56 29 21 106 
Arab and Middle East Countries  18 10 5 33 
Asia and the Pacific  39 19 22 80 
Central and Eastern Europe and 
Central Asia  15 8 7 30 
Europe  1 3 7 11 
Latin America and the Caribbean  46 26 9 81 
North America  - - 1 1 
Global  - - 4471 44 
Total  175 95 116 386 
 
                                                
68 The summary report of the Pesticide MRLs Workshop was circulated as G/SPS/R/85. The program me 
(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/wksho p_oct16_e.htm . 
69 More information is provided in Section 16 on Cross -cutting issues.  
70 G/SPS/GEN/521, latest revision.  
71 This category also includes the Advanced SPS Course.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 19 - 
 
  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  
7.18.   The STDF is a global partnership that helps developing countries build their sanitary and 
phytosanitary capacity and their ability to gain and maintain market access. The STDF contributes 
to broader sustainable development goals, such as enhanced economic growth, poverty reduc tion, 
food security and environmental protection. 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 contribu tions. It provides a platform 
for organizations to come together to discuss SPS capacity building needs, share experiences and 
good practice, and leverage additional funding. In addition, the STDF provides seed funding to 
beneficiaries for the development and implementation of SPS projects. The WTO houses the 
Secretariat and manages the STDF trust fund.72 
7.19.   From 2014 -2017, the STDF organized several thematic events on the margins of the 
SPS Committee to provide information to Members on several cross -cutting S PS issues. A list of 
STDF thematic sessions from 2014 -2017 can be found below.  
Implementing 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 electroni c 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 Analysis 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 
 
7.20.   From 2014 -2017, 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 fi rst 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 cha in, sanitary and phytosanitary capacity helps 
to make 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.73 
7.21.   As part of it s role to share available know -how and SPS -related good practice, the STDF 
regularly issues briefing notes on issues of interest. Between 2014 -2017, the STDF released 
briefing notes on the following topics:  
                                                
72 More information on the STDF and its activities, including projects and project preparation grants, is 
available on the STDF website ( http://www.standardsfacility.org ). Members can also subscribe to the STDF 
mailing list to receive news on relevant activities.  
73 https://www.youtube.com/c/STDFvideos . G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Implementing SPS Measures to 
Facilitate Safe Trad e 
 
December 2015  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_No
10_EN_web.pdf   
Prioritizing SPS Investments for 
Market Access (P -IMA) 
 
January 2016  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_No
11_PIMA_EN.pdf   
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  
 
Februa ry 2017  http://www.standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Briefing_No
te_15.pdf   
Facilitating safe tr ade: 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  
 
7.22.   In 2017, the STDF initiated work on good regulatory practice (GRP)74 which included 
undertaking a short inf ormal survey to find out how SPS agencies in developing country Members 
apply good regulatory practices to strengthen the development, implementation and review of SPS 
measures. The survey was developed with a core group of interested STDF partners: FAO, O IE, 
IPPC, Codex, the World Bank, WTO, as well as the United States and the European Commission as 
donor Members. The STDF plans to identify case stories on the use of good regulatory practice and 
may hold a thematic session on the margins of the SPS Commit tee meeting, if Members were 
interested.  
7.23.   The STDF Working Group agreed in late 2017 to begin new thematic work on the 
implementation of international standards in a public -private partnership (PPP) context, with 
particular attention to private assurance s chemes. The STDF plans to hold a seminar on PPPs on 
the margins of a future SPS Committee meeting.  
8  SPECIAL AND DIFFEREN TIAL TREATMENT (ARTI CLE 10)  
Recommendations resultin g from the Fourth  Review:  
• The Committee should maintain special and differential treatment as a standing item of the 
agenda for its regular meetings.  
• The Committee should continue to consider specific, concrete actions to address the 
problems faced by developing country Members and, in particular, least -developed country 
Members, in th e implementation of the SPS Agreement and in making use of the benefits of 
the Agreement.  
• Members are encouraged to provide information regarding the special and differential 
treatment or technical assistance they have provided in response to specific need s identified 
by Members in accordance with the procedure adopted by the Committee (G/SPS/33/Rev.1), 
to be periodically compiled in a report by the Secretariat.  
• As foreseen in the Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment 
in Favour of Developing Country Members, the Committee should review its implementation 
as part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement.75 
                                                
74 http://www.standardsfacility.org/good -regulatory -practice . 
75 Paragraph 7, G/SPS/33/Rev.1.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 21 - 
 
  8.1.  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 proposals relating to Ar ticles 10.2 and 10.3 of the 
SPS Agreement.  
8.2.  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 e xperience 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 earlier, and that two 
documents had resulted from these discussions: t he 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 Country Members (G/SPS/33/Rev.1). Since its 
adoption, no requests had been sub mitted under this Procedure.  
8.3.  The WTO reported on a n 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.76 The SPS -related proposals referred to : (i) early notification by 
developed countries of all their SPS 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 ex pressed 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 th at the SPS Committee's Report on S&D 
Proposals (G/SPS/35) , adopted ten years ago , also provided relevant background on the 
underlying concerns, some of which remained the same.  
8.4.  In 2017, Nigeria highlighted the importance of the implementation and enforceme nt of 
provisions on special and differential treatment in the SPS Agreement, for Africa in general and 
Nigeria in particular. 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.  
8.5.  Madagascar also noted the concerns expressed by Members on new regulatory provisions 
taken by the European Union as well as measures in force on p esticides 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 with technical assistance to enable it to set 
up, at a national level, the necessary measures to bring the country in line with the regulat ion, 
including a plan towards the progressive withdrawal of pesticides which would be banned.  
9  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT  
9.1.  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 2017, 535 disputes had formally been raised under the WTO's 
dispute settlement system. Of these, 47 alleged violation of the SPS Agreement, and the SPS 
Agreement was relevant  also in two other disputes. 27 resulted in the establishment of a dispute 
settlement panel. These panels were established to look at 18 different SPS issues, listed below. 
Subsequent to the Fourth Review, action has occurred in DS506, DS524, DS525, DS532 and in the 
last three disputes  in the following list , as further detailed in Appendix D :77 
                                                
76 The proposals are contained in document JOB/DEV/29 -JOB/TNC/51.  
77 Please note that in four disputes, the panels (and the Appellate Body) made findings principally under 
the TBT Agreement. These cases concerned Canada's complaint against the European Communities' ban on 
asbesto s and products containing asbestos, Canada and Mexico's complaint against the United States' country 
of origin (COOL) labelling requirements, and Indonesia's complaint against the United States' ban on clove 
cigarettes.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 22 - 
 
  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 agai nst the European Communities' measures 
concerning meat and meat products (ban on meat treated with growth -promoting 
hormones, DS26 and DS48);  
3. The United States' complaint against Japan's measures affecting agricultural products 
(requirement to test differe nt fruit varieties with regard to treatment efficacy, DS76);  
4. Ecuador's complaint against Turkey's import 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 importation 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 products (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 importation 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 against Korea's restrictions on bovine meat and meat products 
(mutually agreed solution notified, DS391);  
13. China's complaint against the United States' measur es affecting imports of poultry 
(DS392);  
14. The United States' complaint against India's measures concerning the importation of 
certain agricultural products (due to concerns about avian influenza; compliance panel 
proceedings on -going, DS430);  
15. Argentina's co mplaint against the United States' measures affecting the importation of 
animals, meat and other animal products (due to concerns about foot -and-mouth disease, 
(DS447);  
16. The European Union 's complaint against Russian measures affecting the importation of li ve 
pigs, pork, pork products and certain other commodities  (due to concerns about  African 
Swine Fever , 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).  
10  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E AGREEMENT – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
Recommendations resulting from  the Fourth  Review:  
• The Committee should continue to consider specific trade concerns raised by Members as a 
standing item of the agenda of its regular meetings.  
• Members are encouraged to make use of this opportunity to identify specific trade problems 
and to seek to find expedit ious and mutually satisfactory resolutions of these problems.  
• Members are encouraged to inform the Committee of all specific trade concerns resolved.  
• The Secretariat is requested to continue to provide regularly updated information on the 
specific trade concerns considered by the Committee.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 23 - 
 
  10.1.   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 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 eighteenth revision of 
G/SPS/GEN/204 ,78 and include all issues which have been raised at SPS Committee meetings 
through to the end of 2017.  
10.2.   Altogether, 434 specific trade concerns were raised between 1995 and the end of 2017.79 
Chart  2 shows the number of new concerns raised each year; 66 new co ncerns have been raised 
since 2014 . Chart 3 categorizes the trade concerns raised since 2014  into food safety, animal 
health, plant health or other issues . It is important to keep in mind, however, that some issues 
may relate to more than one of these cate gories. Concerns relating 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, 32 % of 
trade  concerns  discussed  raised relate to food safety, 27% relate to plant health, and 12 % concern 
other issues such as certification  requirements or translation. 29 % of concerns raised relate to 
animal health and zoonoses. The animal health and zoonoses catego ry is further divided into foot -
and-mouth disease (FMD), transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), avian influenza (AI) 
and other animal health concerns (OAH). Chart 4 shows that issues related to AI account for 21% 
of animal health concerns raised  since 2014, TSEs account for 11 %, and issues related to FMD 
account for 10%. The remaining 58 % relate to OAH concerns.  
Chart  2 – Number of new issue s raised  
 
                                                
78 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18 was circulate d to Members on 20 February 2018.  
79 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 20172112423
13
102843
29
2131
1016 16
1322
16 1624
1421
1417G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Chart  3 – Trade concerns since 20 14, by subject  
 
 
Chart 4 –Trade concerns  since 2014 , related to animal health & zoonoses  
 
 
10.3.   Developing country Members have been participating actively under this agenda item in the 
SPS Committee meetings. Chart 5 indicates that over the last four years, developin g country 
Members have raised 49  trade conce rns (on many occasions more than one Member has raised, 
supported or mai ntained an issue) compared to 23  raised by developed country Members and two 
raised by a least -developed country Member. A developing country Member has supported another 
Member raisin g an issue in 66 cases, compared to 12  for developed country Members and nineteen  
for least -developed country Members. In 20 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a 
developed country Member, and in 51 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 6 shows the number of new issues raised since 201 4 by each 
category of Member .80  
                                                
80 As any individual trade concern can potentially be raised by more than one Member, this explains the 
apparent double -counting shown in Charts 5 and 6 compared with the overall count of the 66  specific trade 
concerns raised since 2014 . 
Animal Health
29%
Food safety
32%Other 
concerns
12%Plant Health
27%
AI
21%
FMD
10%
OAH
58%TSE
11%G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Chart 5 – Participation by WTO  Members (2014 -2017 ) 
 
 
Chart 6 – Number of new issues raised by Members since 2014  
 
 
10.4.   Members are regularly invited to report on resolved issues. Chart 7 indicates that 165  trade 
concerns have been reported resolved out of the 434  trade concerns raised over the 23 years  (i.e. 
1995-2017) . 24 issues were reported  as resolved between 2014  and 2017, 17 of which in 2017  
alone.  Nine trade concerns were reported as partially solved during the period under review.  
In these instan ces, 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 235  trade concerns , although some of these may  have been resolved without the 
Committee being made aware of these developments.  
20
12235166
49
19
2
Members Maintaining the Measure Supporting Members Members Raising the Issue
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-developed countries
7
4
36717
1116
024681012141618
2014 2015 2016 2017
Developed Countries Developing CountriesG/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Chart 7 – Solved trade concerns  
 
 
11  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E AGREEMENT – USE OF AD HOC CONSUL TATIONS  
Recommendation s resulting from the Fourth  Review:  
• As foreseen in the Recommended Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of 
Specific SPS issues among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2, the Committee should 
review its implementation as part of the periodic reviews of the SPS Agreement.81 
• Members are encouraged to provide their experiences in the  use of ad hoc consultations, 
including through the good offices of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee, to facilitate the 
resolution of specific trade concerns.  
 
11.1.   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 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.82 
11.2.   Following -up on the Second review, the Committee began  discussing a possible procedure 
to facilitate the use of ad hoc consultations and negotiations to resolve SPS issues.  After the  
Committee's recommendation in the Thi rd Review to expeditiously conclude this issue, several 
Members submitted proposals for  such a procedure.83 Members worked intensively to develop a 
procedure (G/SPS/W/259  and its revisions) during 201 1 to 2013.84 
11.3.   At the SPS Committee meeting in March 2014, I ndia 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 r eaching consensus on the draft procedure  reviewed the queries submitted 
by India, and provided the requested clarifications in RD/SPS/5  in June 2014.  
11.4.   In July 2014, the Committee adopted the Recommended Procedure to Encourage and 
Facilitate the Resolution of Specific Sanitary and Phytosanitary Issues among Members in 
                                                
81 Paragraph 5.1. in G /SPS/61.  
82 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. 
83 G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4 and JOB/SPS/1.  
84 Additional information on the Committee's discussions before 2014 can be found in Section 11 o f the 
Fourth Review  Report  (G/SPS/62 ). 
235
165
34
No solution reported Solution reported Partial solution reportedG/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Accordance with Article 12.2, with the changes suggested by India , on an ad referendum bas is. 
No Member raised an objection by the deadline, and the final decision was circulated as G/SPS/61.  
11.5.   Based on paragraph 4.1 of G/SPS/61, the Secretariat prepares  an annual report on the use 
of the procedure.85 Since the adoption of G/SPS/61, no Member ha s requested consultations under 
this procedure.  
12  COOPERA TION WITH THE CODEX,  IPPC AND OIE 
Recommendations resulting from the Fourth  Review:  
• Members are encouraged to provide information on their experiences in coordinating their 
involvement in the work of Cod ex, IPPC and OIE at the national level.  
• The relevant international organizations are invited to keep the Committee informed of any 
work related to the SPS Agreement.  
 
12.1.   The 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.  
13  GOOD REGULATORY PRAC TICE  
Recommendations resulting from the Fourth  Review:  
• Members are invited to provide information regarding their experiences in the use of the 
guidelines developed by the Committee with respect to transparency, equivalence, recognition 
of pest - or disease -free areas, and the avoidance of arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in 
levels of protection.  
 
13.1.   In 2017, t he 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.  
13.2.   In the 2017 Transparency Workshop, organized by the Secretar iat, one particular session 
focused on national experiences and best practices in public consultations. This session highlighted 
relevant international work on models and mechanisms for public consultation in SPS rulemaking, 
with speakers from the OECD, th e World Bank and Malaysia, which provided both a national and 
an APEC perspective. One 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 a broad. Having a single, unified website or portal was also  highlighted as being useful in 
conducting and managing a consultative process.  
13.3.   In 2017, the STDF reported on new work on good regulatory  practice in the SPS area. 
This information is available in s ection 7. 
14  SPS-RELATED PRIVATE STAN DARDS  
Recommendations resulting from the Fourth Review:  
• Members and Observer Governments are encouraged to provide information on any relevant 
studies or analysis which they have undertaken, or of which they are aware.  
• The Committee should continue its implementation of agreed actions one to five (G/SPS/55). 
The Committee may also continue its considerations of other outstanding issues 
(G/SPS/W/256) and of relevant activities.  
 
                                                
85 These annual reports are contained in documents G/SPS/GEN/1457 , G/SPS/GEN/1513 and 
G/SPS/GEN/1573 . G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 28 - 
 
  14.1  Background  
14.1.   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 Grenadines with regard to EurepGAP (now called 
GLOBALGAP) requir ements on pesticides used on bananas destined for sale in European markets.86 
After considerable discussion in the SPS Committee, an ad hoc working group was established to 
identify "Possible Actions for the SPS Committee Regarding SPS -Related Private Stand ards".87 
At its March 2011 meeting, the Committee endorsed five of the six actions put forward by the ad 
hoc working group.88 Despite further revision and discussions, consensus was not reached on 
Action  6.89 In addition , six other actions were also identifie d by the work ing 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 differences of opinion.  
14.2.   Since 2011, the Committee's discussions on p rivate 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.  
14.2  Action 1 - Definition  
14.3.   The Committee discussed a working definition on the basis of draft definitions prepared by 
the Secretariat drawing on  proposals from Members.90 In 2013 , the Committee agreed to form an 
electronic working group (e -WG), with China and New Zealand as "co -stewa rds". 
14.4.   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 Argentina and Canada at the July 2014 meeting.91 The co -
stewards presented two report s on the work of the e -WG,92 including  proposed working definition s, 
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.  
14.5.   In 2015, the co -stewards circulated a nother  report on the work of th e e-WG93. The repo rt 
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 th e 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.  
14.6.   Some Members stressed the need to keep working towards a working definition of SPS -
related p rivate 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 the definition. Giv en 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 app ropriate, with the objective 
of agreeing on a working definition as soon as possible.  
14.7.   Still i n 2015, the co -stewards reported on their consultations with the e -WG following the 
cooling off period agreed in March 2015. Very limited feedback had been receive d on how to 
progress work. Argentina introduced a document94 regarding discussions on a definition of SPS -
                                                
86 G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras.16 -20. 
87 G/SPS/W/256.  
88 G/SPS/55.  
89 G/SPS/W/261.  
90 G/SPS/W/265, G/SPS/W/265/Rev.1 and G/SPS/W/265/Rev.2.  
91 G/SPS/GEN/1334 and G/SPS/GEN/1334 /Rev.1.  
92 G/SPS/W/276 , G/SPS/ W/281.  
93 G/SPS/W/283 . 
94 G/SPS/W/285 . G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 29 - 
 
  related private standards and stressed the need to agree on a definition, given the numerous 
harmful effects of private standards.  Belize also presente d a document95 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 continue  its cooling -off period, until new  thinking or proposals emerged.  
14.8.   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 c ould only be resolved together.  
14.9.   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 .96 
14.3  Actions 2 to 5  
14.10.   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, IPPC and OIE to contact the private schemes identified by Members in 
document G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 to promote the use of intern ational 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 regional 
bodies. Codex also continued to r each 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 private and official standards, and 
drew attention to the OIE General Assembly's Resolution on Private Standards.97 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 standards.  Chile also referred to th e 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 should increase the participation of private standard -setting bodies as 
observers in their standard -setting processes. This collaboration would help improve transparency 
and the implementation of official science -based standards.  
14.11.   On Action 3, the Secretariat has kept the Committee informed of relevant discussions in 
other WTO fora, including: (i) the th ematic discussion on standards organized during the March 
2014 TBT  Committee meetings ;98 (ii) sessions of the 5th Global Review of Aid for Trade ; and 
(iii) various sessions of the 2016 WTO Public Forum .99 
14.12.   On Action 4, it was 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 make 
reference to the Code of Good Pr actice of the TBT Agreement and to the TBT Committee's Decision 
on the "Six Principles" for the preparation of international standards.100 Belize also noted that 
Action 4 could be enhanced by sensitizing private standard -setting entities to the list of conce rns in 
paragraph 24 under Action 6 of document G/SPS/W/256.101 Belize drew Members' attention 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 
                                                
95 G/SPS/W/288 . 
96 Following a proposal from the United States (G/SPS/W/291), in March 2017, and subsequent 
discussions among Members, the specific recommendation was replaced by descriptive text explaining the 
nature of the disagreement. At its July 2017 meeting, the Commi ttee agreed on the inclusion of new language 
in section 14 of the report, as circulated in document RD/SPS/15, and adopted the Fourth Review Report  
(G/SPS/62) . 
97 G/SPS/GEN/1024.  
98JOB/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. 
99 https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_forum16_e/public_forum16_e.htm . 
100 G/SPS/GEN/1261.  
101 G/SPS/ GEN/1290.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 30 - 
 
  from Global GAP.102 Nigeria stressed that the SPS Committee had a vital role to play in addressing 
the issues related to private standard s and their impact on international trade.  
14.13.   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 standa rd-setting entities in their territories were encouraged to share 
their experiences in that regard. The Philippines reported on regional and national briefing sessions 
jointly organized by the Department of Agriculture and the United Nations Forum on Susta inability 
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 priv ate standards.  
14.14.   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 Agricul ture. 
14.15.   On Action 5, the Secretariat referred to various relevant examples relating to the 
collaboration between the SPS Committee and the Three Sisters to develop and/or disseminate 
informative materials on the importance of international standards. In part icular, 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.  
14.16.   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 priva te 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 e mphasized the importance of adopting and adhering to international 
standards. Some Members noted the importance of increased 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 encouraged 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, IPPC and OIE liaise directly with the various private 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 been reflected in the 
relevant Chair summaries, which in turn were reflected in the Secretariat's regular reports on 
releva nt Committee activities, including the consideration of private standards, to the IPPC's CPM, 
the OIE World Assembly of Delegates and the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  
14.17.   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 the cooperation of the OIE and IPPC in that regard.  
14.18.   Regarding other information on SPS -related private standards, Belize re ported on the 
19th session of the Joint FAO/WHO Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean 
held in Costa Rica in November 2014. Belize referred Members to paragraphs 161 to 166 of Codex 
document REP/15/LAC for further details of the discuss ions and of the recommendations made at 
the meeting.  
14.19.   The OECD flagged its upcoming report on voluntary environmental standards which 
focused on the linkages between voluntary (often private) environmental standards and public 
policies.103 
                                                
102 G/SPS/GEN/1398 . 
103 G/SPS/GEN/1399 . G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 31 - 
 
  14.4  Other suggested actions  
14.20.   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 Membe rs indicated that they 
were not prepared to work on those actions where there had been no consensus.  
14.21.   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 sta ndards did fall 
within the jurisdiction of the SPS Committee and that information exchange on these issues should 
be on the agenda of the Committee.  
14.22.   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 recommendations 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 address 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 11.104 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.105 
14.5  Other activities in relation to private standards  
14.23.   On other matters related to private standards, Belize registered its concern regarding the 
evolution in food safety certifica tion requirements, as governments were responsible for setting 
SPS measures, with guidance from international standards.106 Belize noted that a country's 
appropriate level of protection should not be set by the private sector, and stressed that the 
SPS Commi ttee 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 capacity building 
workshop on food waste and noted that data from pilot studies showed sig nificant 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 th at they applied requirements only to the extent necessary.  
14.24.   In 2014, the ITC presented the most recent version of its online "Standards Map", an 
interactive web -tool which provides information on over 130 private and public voluntary 
standards, across 700 different criteri a of analysis. The ITC confirmed that the terminology of 
"voluntary standards" and the schemes identified in the Standards Map encompassed both 
government and private voluntary 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 
consulted by ISEAL and GIZ107 regarding the development of a Sustainability Standards 
Compa rison Tool. The tool was being developed and should be piloted by the end of 2014.  
14.25.   Some Members also provided other information under the agenda item on private and 
commercial 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 queried China's interpretation 
of Article 13, and also whether drafting a paper on best prac tices was the best means of advancing 
work.  
                                                
104 G/SPS/GEN/1291.  
105 G/SPS/GEN/1240.  
106 G/SPS/GEN/1374.  
107 International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL); and Deutsche 
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 32 - 
 
  14.26.   In November 2017, Belize informed the Committee of its participation in a government to 
government meeting held in Texas, United States in February 20 17, 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 
certific ation 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 per spectives 
and experiences.108 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.  
15  CATALOGUE OF INS TRUMENTS  
15.1.   In the context of the Fourth Review, Canada proposed that the Committee develop a 
"Catalogue of Instruments Available to the WTO Members to manage SPS issues"109, 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 provide 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.  
15.2.   Many Members welcomed the proposal and highlighted the usefulness of developing a 
compendium 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 meeting s in 2014, and the proponents 
revised it in resp onse to comments and suggestions from Members.  
15.3.   In March 2015, Canada presented the second  revision110 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 document s adopted by the Committee. At the 
request of the Chairperson, t he 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 Sanitary or 
Phytosanitary Issues among Members in Accordance with Article 12.2 (G/SPS/61).111 
At Committee meetings in 2015 -2017, Members continued discussi ng this disclaimer language, 
based on further proposals from  Members and from Chairpersons.  
15.4.   In 2017, many Members ind icated 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.112 Members were asked to consult with their capitals . In November 2017, the 
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 helpf ul.113 
15.5.   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 combines an introductory paragraph describin g the intended uses 
                                                
108 G/SPS/GEN/1592.  
109 G/SPS/W/271.  
110 G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2 . 
111 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 other WTO agreement and shall not constitute a 
legally binding agreement."  
112 The new language , as well as other proposals,  were circulated in room document RD/SPS/16 . 
113 Prior to discussions in the formal meeting  of the March 2018 SPS Committee , a legal expert from the 
Secretariat briefed the Committee on the use of C ommittee decisions with or without disclaimers in dispute 
settlement.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 33 - 
 
  of the Catalogue 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 advanc ing 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.  
16  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  (PESTICIDE MRLS)  
16.1.   In 2015, the Committee agree d 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 
Committee 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 f or the October 
2016 Committee meeting.114  
16.1  Pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs)  
16.2.   In 2015, India presented  a document on the need for measures on detection of pesticide 
residues not registered in the country of import for unimpeded flow of trade .115 The purpo se 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 pes ticides. 
India observed that LoDs were being applied even for sub stances where Codex standards existed  
and provided examples where the application of LoDs had a trade impact. The document 
concluded by suggesting certain steps in dealing with this issue. India also proposed two 
corrections to the document .  
16.3.   Several Membe rs shared  India's concerns and the need to evaluate whether guidelines could 
be recommended, while 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/211 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 bodies to support the elaboration of a Codex standard. Sus tainable 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 session  and in vited 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 .116 
16.4.   The Secretariat organized a Thematic Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels in 
October 2016 (see section 7). Following the workshop , the United States made suggestions for 
future work by the SPS Committee in four topic areas : (i) enhancement of the Codex MRL system ; 
(ii) transparency and predictabi lity in Members' regulatory approaches ; (iii) regular updates on 
harmonization efforts being undertaken 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 Uni ted 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.  
16.5.   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 inv olvement in data generation efforts . 
                                                
114 WTO/AIR/SPS/12 . 
115 G/SPS/W/284 . 
116 G/SPS/GEN/1468 . G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 34 - 
 
  16.6.   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.117 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 pr actices for greater transparency and predictability on MRLs; 
(c) reporting to the Committee on international and regional activities on MRLs; (d) collaborating 
on solutions for MRLs for minor use and specialty crops; and (e) discussing the role of the 
Comm ittee in increasing coordination and harmonization. In relation to the last proposal, the 
United States also highlighted that if there was consensus in the Committee on any of the 
proposed suggestions, the Chairperson could issue a statement reflecting thi s consensus.  
16.7.   In discussions of the proposal, s everal 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 unad dressed. In the view of the United 
States, the information provided by e xperts at the workshop provided a firmer basis for the 
resolution of trade -related MRL issues, based on which the joint paper recognized a wide range of 
legitimate MRL -related trade concerns that Members could collectively work to resolve. The United 
State s recognized that the LOD issue was complex, as they had a pre -market authorization 
approval system that was consistent with their rights under the SPS Agreement. The United States 
indicated openness for discussions with India and other Members on their pe rspectives.  
16.8.   The WHO welcomed the proposal for follow -up work on pesticide MRLs. In relation to the 
JMPR recommendation, the WHO encouraged Members to have their national experts apply to 
serve as experts to the JMPR process.  
16.9.   A revised version of the propos al118 was circulated ahead of two consultations held in 
October 2017.  It suggested that the SPS Committee include the recommendations contained 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 majority of Members supported the proposal, some 
indicated that they were still studying it and several Members asked about the pr oposed process 
for the possible adoption of the Ministerial Decision.  
16.10.   On the basis of comments received, a subsequent revision119 was circulated, 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 e fforts 
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.  
16.11.   Many  Members expressed t heir support for the proposal, both the draft Ministerial 
Decision, as well as the inclusion of the recommendations in the Fifth Review. Several of these 
Members indicated that the proposal and its recommendations bro adly captured the current MRL -
related concerns and noted that the proposal would be beneficial to all Members. Several Members 
also thanked the proponents for the transparent and consultative approach used throughout the 
process, highlighting that these di scussions had started a year ago, on the basis of deliberations in 
the Workshop on Pesticide MRLs, followed by informal discussions in several meetings. In addition, 
it was noted that the topic of pesticide MRLs merited consideration at the Ministerial Con ference.  
16.12.   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 the terminology used, and the 
desire to avoid duplication. A couple of Members made textual suggestions, and were invited to 
                                                
117 G/SPS/W/292.  
118 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.1.  
119 G/SPS/W/292/Rev.2.  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 35 - 
 
  submit them in w riting.  India thanked the proponent's for their written response to its comments. 
India was of the view that the proposal 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 were exhausted, 
it would be premature to submit recommendations for the Fifth Review or to the CTG.  
16.13.   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 develope d countries. The United States further 
provided a detailed response to several arguments raised by opponents of the Ministerial Decision.  
16.14.   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 .120 
_______________  
                                                
120 WT/MIN(17)/52 .  
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 36 - APPENDIX A – SECRETARIAT BACKGROU ND DOCUMENTS AND OTH ER MEETING DOCUMENTS , 2014 -2017  
Subject  Year Type of Activity  Related Documents  
Transparency  2014 Overview regarding the level of implementation of the 
transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.7  
 2015 Questionnaire on transparency under the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/1382  
  Analysis of the replies to the questionnaire on transparency 
under the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/1402  
  WTO definitions of the term "trade facilitating"  G/SPS/GEN/1417  
  Workshop on Transparency 2015 –Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1419; and G/SPS/GEN/1446  
  Report of the Workshop on Transparency 2015  G/SPS/R/80  
 2015-2017 Overview regarding the level of implementation of the 
transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8; 
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.8/Corr.1;  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.9; and  
G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.10  
 2017 Eping user survey - Summary of responses  G/SPS/GEN/1569  
  E-ping Alert System  G/SPS/GEN/1591  
  SPS Committee Thematic Session on Notification of Trade -
Facilitating Measures  G/SPS/GEN/1544  
  Thematic Session on Notification of Trade -facilitating SPS 
Measures, 22 March 2017: Introduction to notification of trade -
facilitating SPS measures  RD/SPS/8  
  Thematic Session on Notification of Trade -facilitating SPS 
Measures, 22 March 2017:  Notification  of Trade -Facilitating SPS 
Measures - EU practices  RD/SPS/9  
  Thematic Session on Notification of Trade -facilitating SPS 
Measures, 22 March 2017: Transparency, Trade -Facilitating SPS 
Measures, Chile's experience  RD/SPS/10  
  Thematic Session on Notification of Trade -facilitating SPS 
Measures, 22 March 2017: Trade Facilitation Agreement 
Transparency Provisions  RD/SPS/11  
  Informal SPS Committee meetings, 21 March 2017:  
ePing SPS/TBT notification alert system - Using ePing's "File 
sharing" function to disseminate unofficial translations  RD/SPS/12  
  Formal SPS Committee meetings, 22 March 2017:  
Introduction to ePing SPS/TBT notification alert system  RD/SPS/13  
  Workshop on Transparency - October 2017 - Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1568; G/SPS/GEN/1568/Rev.1; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1568/Rev.2  
Monitoring International Standards  2014 Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization 
- Draft sixteenth annual report  G/SPS/GEN/1332  
 2015-2017 Annual report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization  G/SPS/GEN/1411, G/SPS/GEN/1490 and 
G/SPS/GEN/1550   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 37 - Subject  Year Type of Activity  Related Documents  
Technical Assistance  2014 SPS Technical Assistance and Training Activities – 1 September 
1994 to 31 December 2013  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.9  
  WTO SPS Technical Assistance Activities in 2014: General 
Information, Selection Processes and Application Form  G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.4; and  
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.4/Add.1  
  Workshop on Risk Analysis - Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1336; and G/SPS/GEN/1358  
  Mid-term review of  the Standards and Trade Development 
Facility  (STDF)  G/SPS/GEN/1304  
  Update on the operation of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility  G/SPS/GEN/1311; G/SPS/GEN/1337; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1357  
 2015 SPS Technical Assistance and Training Activities – 1 September 
1994 to 31 December 2014  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.10  
  WTO SPS Technical Assistance Activities in 2015: General 
Information, Selection Processes and Application Form  G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.5  
  SPS Committee Thematic Session on Risk Communication 2015 
- Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1413; and G/SPS/GEN/1428  
  Workshop on Transparency 2015 – Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1419; and G/SPS/GEN/1446  
  Report of the Workshop on Risk Analysis 2014  G/SPS/R/77  
  Report of the Workshop on Transparency 2015  G/SPS/R/80  
  Update on the operation of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility  G/SPS/GEN/1384; G/SPS/GEN/1418; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1439  
 2016 SPS Technical Assistance and Training Activities - 1 September 
1994 to 31 December 2015  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.11  
  WTO SPS Technical Assistance Activities in 2016: General 
Information, Selection Processes and Application Form  G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.6; and 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.6/Add.1  
  SPS Committee Thematic Session on Pesticide MRLs – 
Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1468  
  Workshop on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) 2016 – 
Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1498; G/SPS/GEN/1514; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1514/Rev.1  
  Update on the operation of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility  G/SPS/GEN/1470; G/SPS/GEN/1497; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1516  
 2017 SPS Technical Assistance and Training Activities - 1 September 
1994 to 31 December 2016  G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.12  
  WTO SPS Technical Assistance Activities in 2017: General 
Information, Selection Processes and Application Form  G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.7  
  SPS Committee Thematic Session on Notif ication of Trade -
Facilitating Measures  G/SPS/GEN/1544  
  SPS Committee Thematic Session on Regionalization - July 2017 
- Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1567  
  Workshop on Transparency - October 2017 - Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1568; G/SPS/GEN/1568/Rev.1; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1568/Rev.2  
  Update on the operation of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility  G/SPS/GEN/1538; G/SPS/GEN/1558; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1581   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 38 - Subject  Year Type of Activity  Related Documents  
Implementation of the Agreement – 
Specific Trade Concerns /Ad Hoc 
Consultations  2014 -2017 Specific Trade Concerns  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14; G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15; 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15/Corr.1; 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16; and  
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 2014 Specific Trade Concerns: Note by the Secretariat  RD/SPS/2  
  Clarifications Requested by India on the Proposed Recommended 
Procedure Relating to the Implementation of Article 12.2 of the 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7)  RD/SPS/4  
  Proposed Response to the Clarifications sought by India on 
G/SPS/W/259/Rev.7  RD/SPS/5  
 2015 -2017 Annual report on the use of the procedure to encourage and 
facilitate the resolution of specific sanitary or phytosanitary 
issues among members in accordance with Article 12.2 
(G/SPS/61)  G/SPS/GEN/1457; G/SPS/GEN/1513; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1573  
  Update on specific trade concerns (STCs): Resolved/partially 
resolved STCs  RD/SPS/28  
Private Standards  2014 Existing definitions of private standards in other international 
organizations  G/SPS/GEN/1334; and G/SPS/GEN/1334/Rev.1  
 2016 Proposed Package on SPS-related Private Standards  RD/SPS/6  
Regionalization  2014 - 
2017 Annual Report on the Implementation of Article 6 of the 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary And Phytosanitary 
Measures  G/SPS/GEN/1333; G/SPS/GEN/1412; 
G/SPS/GEN/1491; G/SPS/GEN/1552; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1552/Corr.1  
 2017 SPS Committee Thematic Session on Regionalization - July 2017 
- Programme  G/SPS/GEN/1567  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017:  
Regionalization - Provisions (Article 6) and Guidelines 
(G/SPS/48)  RD/SPS/17  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017:  
Regionalization - Recent Panel and Appellate Body Decisions  RD/SPS/18  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017: OIE 
standards on zoning and compartmentalisation and their 
implementation  RD/SPS/ 19 
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017:  
Regionalization in trade: The experience of the European Union 
with HPAI  RD/SPS/20  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017: 
Regionalization in the European Union  RD/SPS/21  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017: Experience 
of Ukraine in the recognition of HPAI regionalization and BSE 
risk status by trade partners  RD/SPS/22  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017:  
Classical swine fever in Guatemala – Experiences in surveillance, 
control and the eradication process, 2011 -2017  RD/SPS/23   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 39 - Subject  Year Type of Activity  Related Documents  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017: Russian 
Federation's Experience in the Application of the Regionalization 
Principle RD/SPS/24  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017: Living 
Regionalization (South Africa)  RD/SPS/25  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017: Japan's 
experience on regionalization with regard to animal health  RD/SPS/26  
  Thematic Session on Regionalization, 11 July 2017: 
Regionalization Evaluation Services - Recognizing the Animal 
Health Status of Foreign Regions (United States)  RD/SPS/27  
Review of the SPS Agreement  2014 Fourth Review of the Operation and Implementation o f the 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures - Summary of proposals submitted by Members  G/SPS/GEN/1307  
  Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement - Background document  G/SPS/GEN/1312; and G/SPS/GEN/1312/Corr.1  
  Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement - Draft Report of the Committee  G/SPS/W/280; G/SPS/W/280/Corr.1; 
G/SPS/W/280/Rev.1; and G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2  
 2017 Catalogue of Instruments Available to WTO Members  
to Manage SPS Issues (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2): Compilation of 
Suggestions for an Introductory Paragraph ("Disclaimer") by 
Reverse Chronological Order  RD/SPS/7  
  Fourth Review Report (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2): Compilation of 
proposed language for descriptive text for paragraph 14.20 of 
the Fourth Review Report  RD/SPS/14  
  Fourth Review Report (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2): Proposed language 
for descriptive text for section 14 of  the Fourth Review Report  RD/SPS/15  
  Catalogue of Instruments Available to WTO Members to Manage 
SPS Issues (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2): Compilation of suggestions 
for an introductory paragraph ("disclaimer") discussed at the 
meeting in July 2017  RD/SPS/16  
  Report of the Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement  G/SPS/62  
  Proposed Process for the Fifth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the Agreement on the Application  
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  G/SPS/W/296  
Other  2014 Inter-Agency Liaison Group on Invasive Alien Species - Recent 
activities of group members  G/SPS/GEN/1320  
  Summary of the meeting of: 16 – 17 October 2013; 25 - 26 
March 2014; and 9 - 10 July 2014  G/SPS/R/73; G/SPS/R/73/Corr.1; and  
G/SPS/R/73/Corr.2  
G/SPS/R/74; and G/SPS/R/74/Corr.1  
G/SPS/R/75  
  International Intergovernmental Organizations requests for 
observer status in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures  G/SPS/W/78/Rev.12  
  Report (2014) on the activities of the Committee on Sanitary G/L/1086   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 40 - Subject  Year Type of Activity  Related Documents  
and Phytosanitary Measures  
  Dates of meetings of the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures – 2015 G/SPS/GEN/1348; and G/SPS/GEN/1348/Rev.1  
  India's request for information  on organic product notification  G/SPS/GEN/1354; and  G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1  
  Information Note: The Relationship between the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement and the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS  Agreement)  RD/SPS/3 an d RD/SPS/3/Rev.1  
 2015 Membership in WTO and International Standard -Setting Bodies  G/SPS/GEN/49/Rev.12  
  Summary of the meeting of: 15 – 17 October 2014; 26 – 27 
March 2015; and 15 – 16 July 2015  G/SPS/R/76; G/SPS/R/78; G/SPS/R/79; and 
G/SPS/R/79/Corr.1  
  International Intergovernmental Organizations requests for 
observer status in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures  G/SPS/W/78/Rev.13  
  Report (2015) on the activities of the Committee on Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures  G/L/1129  
  Dates of meetings of the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures - 2016 G/SPS/GEN/1435; G/SPS/GEN/1435/Rev.1 and 
G/SPS/GEN/1435/Rev.2  
 2016 Applicants for observer status  G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.17  
  Nomenclature  G/SPS/GEN/820/Corr.1  
  Summary of the  meeting of: 14 – 16 October 2015; 16 – 17 
March 2016; 30 June – 1 July 2016; 27 – 28 October 2016  G/SPS/R/81; G/SPS/R/82; G/SPS/R/82/Corr.1; 
G/SPS/R/83; G/SPS/R/83/Corr.1; and G/SPS/R/84  
  International Intergovernmental Organizations requests for 
observ er status in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures  G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14  
  Report (2016) on the activities of the Committee on Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures  G/L/1164  
  Dates of meetings of the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures - 2017 G/SPS/GEN/1506  
 2017 Report of the Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels 
2016 G/SPS/R/85  
  Summary of the meeting of: 22 –23 March 2017; 13 -14 July 
2017; 2 –3 November 2017  G/SPS/R/86; and G/SPS/R/86/Corr.1; G/SPS/R/87; 
and G/SPS/R/87/Corr.1;  
G/SPS/R/88; and G/SPS/R/88/Corr.1  
  Report (2017) on the activities of the Committee on Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures  G/L/1202  
  Dates of meetings of the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures – 2018 G/SPS/GEN/1564  
 G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 41 - 
 
  APPENDIX B: LIST OF SPS COMMITTEE DOCUME NTS SUBMITTED BY MEM BERS 2014 -
2017  
A. Comments/Proposals regarding Transparency (Article 7 and Annex B)  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 European Union  Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures - The transparency obligations of the 
SPS Agreement (Article 7 and Annex B)  G/SPS/W/274  
 Chile; European 
Union; Morocco, 
Norway  Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures - The transparency obligations of the 
SPS Agreement (Article 7 and Annex b)  G/SPS/W/277  
 Chile; E uropean 
Union; Morocco, 
Norway  Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures - The transparency obligations of the 
SPS Agreement (Article 7 and Annex b)  G/SPS/W/278  
 European Union  Comments on notification G/SPS/N/RUS/49  G/SPS/GEN/1313  
 Russian Federation  Notification  G/SPS/GEN/1315  
2016 Chile; European Union  Transparency under the SPS Agreement (Article 7 
and Annex B) - Follow -up proposals for action  G/SPS/W/290  
2017 United States  WTO SPS Committee: Transparency Workshop 
October 2017  G/SPS/W/294  and 
G/SPS/W/294/Rev.1  
 
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 
activities (Article 9)  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 Australia  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.4  
 Canada  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1199/Add.1; 
G/SPS/GEN/1318; 
G/SPS/GEN/1196/Corr.1; 
G/SPS/GEN/1342; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1342/Corr.1  
 European Union  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.2  
 Japan  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.1/Corr.1  
2015 Canada  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1426  
 European Union  SPS-related technical assistance provided by the 
European Union  G/SPS/GEN/Add.3  
 Japan  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.3  
 United States  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.11  
2016 Australia  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/717/Add.5  
 Canada  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1522  
 Japan  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.4  
2017 Canada  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1584  
 European Union  SPS-related Technical Assistance provided by 
the European Union in 2015 - 2016 G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.4  
 Japan  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.5  
 United States  Technical Assistance to Developing Countries  G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.12  
C.2 Information regarding Members' technical assistance and training needs  
(Article  9) 
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 Belize  Technical Assistance and Cooperation  G/SPS/GEN/1373  
 Belize  Information on Activities  G/SPS/GEN/1372  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 42 - 
 
  Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2015 Antigua and 
Barbuda  Report on progress made in the establishment of 
the National SPS Committee and update of 
legislation to facilitate compliance  G/SPS/GEN/1460  
 Jamaica  Jamaica Technical Assistance Report - October 
2015 SPS Committee Meeting - Geneva  G/SPS/GEN1449  
 
D. Comments/Proposals regarding special and differential treatment (Article 10)  
 No documents were submitted under this specific topic.  
E. Comments/Proposals regarding Risk Analysis  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 United States  Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
- Workshop on decision making and communication 
during the risk analysis process  G/SPS/W/275  
2015 United States  Risk assessment: Possible next steps for 
consideration  G/SPS/GEN/1401  
 United States  Risk communication: Identifying resources of 
practical use to Members  G/SPS/GEN/1456  
 
F.1 Comments/Proposals regarding Regionalization (Article 6)  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2017 European Union  Informal Meeting on Regionalisation on the 
margins of the SPS Committee of  July 2017  G/SPS/W/293  
 United States  Thematic Session on Pest-Free Areas – 2018 – 
Proposal by the United States  G/SPS/GEN/1593  
 
F.2 Information regarding Members' experience related to Regionalization (Article 6)  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 Argentina  OIE recognition of Argentina as a country free from 
contagious bovine pleuropneumonia and peste des 
petits ruminants  G/SPS/GEN/1347  
 Armenia  Animal health risk assessment and zoning reports  G/SPS/GEN/1309  
 Brazil  Eradication of Cydia pomonella  G/SPS/GEN/1355  
 European 
Union  Notification G/SPS/N/RUS/48  G/SPS/GEN/1305  
 Guatemala  Questions posed by the delegation of Senegal 
concerning areas free from Mediterranean fruit fly  G/SPS/GEN/1326  
 Honduras  Declaration of a pest free area (for Ceratitis Capitata  
Wied. ) in accordance with ISPM No.  10 G/SPS/GEN/1300  
 Mexico  Declaration of area free from large avocado seed 
weevils ( Heilipus lauri ), small avocado seed weevils 
(Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ) and 
avocado seed moths ( Stenoma catenifer ) G/SPS/GEN/1297 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1299 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1301 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1302 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1349  
 Mexico  Declaration of an area with a low prevalence of fruit 
flies of the genus Anastrepha  of quarantine 
significance and Rhagoletis pomonella  G/SPS/GEN/1298  
 Mexico  Declaration of the State of Mexico as an area free 
from Aujeszky's disease  G/SPS/GEN/1303  
 Mexico  Phytosanitary measures to control and mitigate the 
spread of the spotted -wing drosophila ( Drosophila 
suzukii Matsumura )  G/SPS/GEN/1350  
 Mexico  Phytosanitary measures to control and mitigate the 
spread of pierce's disease ( Xylella fastidiosa subsp. 
fastidiosa ) and its vectors  G/SPS/GEN/1351  
 Mexico  Declaration of the United Mexican States as an area 
free from Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis  capitata  
(Wiedemann)  G/SPS/GEN/1376  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 43 - 
 
  Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
 Nicaragua  Analysis of the sanitary regulations for the 
importation of Brazilian meat into the United States  G/SPS/GEN/1330  
 Paraguay  Phytosanitary emergency due to the detection of 
citrus greening disease (Huanglongbing, HLB)  G/SPS/GEN/1366  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1366/Corr.1  
 Peru Declaration as a country free of bluetongue  G/SPS/GEN/1331  
 Thailand  Declaration of Thailand as an area free from Pantoea 
stewartii  subsp. stewartii  G/SPS/GEN/1352  
2015 Argentina  Phytosanitary emergency plan against fruit flies in 
the city of Villa Regina, province of Rio Negro, 
Argentina  G/SPS/GEN/1436  
 Brazil  National programme against fruit flies  G/SPS/GEN/1442  
 Ecuador  Statement by Ecuador - Pest- and disease -free areas 
- 15 - 16 July 2015  G/SPS/GEN/1434  
 Guatemala  End of the suspension of vaccination against 
Classical Swine Fever (CSF) at national level  G/SPS/GEN/1463  
 Mexico  Declaration of areas free from boll weevil 
(Anthonomus grandis ) G/SPS/GEN/1378  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1378/Corr.1  
 Mexico  Declaration of areas free from pink bollworm 
(Pectinophora gossypiella ) G/SPS/GEN/1379  
 Mexico  Declaration of the State of Jalisco as an area free 
from Aujeszky's disease  G/SPS/GEN/1380  
 Mexico  Areas free from Pierce's disease ( Xylella fastidiosa  
subsp. fastidiosa ) G/SPS/GEN/1385  
 Mexico  Area free from the spotted -wing drosophila 
(Drosophila suzukii Matsumura ) G/SPS/GEN/1386  
 Mexico  Areas under phytosanitary control due to the 
presence of pierce's disease ( Xylella fastidiosa  subsp. 
fastidiosa ) G/SPS/GEN/1387  
 Mexico  Areas under phytosanitary control due to the 
presence of the spotted -wing drosophila ( Drosophila 
suzukii Matsumura )  G/SPS/GEN/1388  
 Mexico  Declaration of an area with a low prevalence of fruit 
flies of the genus Anastrepha  of quarantine 
significance  G/SPS/GEN/1389  
 Mexico  Declaration of area free from large avocado seed 
weevils ( Heilipus lauri ), small avocado seed weevils 
(Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ) and 
avocado seed moths ( Stenoma catenifer )  G/SPS/GEN/1390 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1391 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1392 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1393 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1408  
 Mexico  Declaration of the State of San Luis Potosí as an area 
free from Aujeszky's disease  G/SPS/GEN/1406  
 Mexico  Changes in relation to the national tick ( Boophilus  
spp.) control campaign  G/SPS/GEN/1407  
 Mexico  Declaration of areas with a low prevalence of fruit 
flies of the genus Anastrepha  of quarantine 
significance and Rhagoletis  pomonella  G/SPS/GEN/1409  
 Mexico  Declaration of the United Mexican States as a 
country free from Aujeszky's disease in the pig 
farming sector  G/SPS/GEN/1424  
 Mexico  Declaration of the United Mexican States as a 
country free from Velogenic Newcastle disease  G/SPS/GEN/1425  
 Morocco  Declaration of Morocco as a country free from African 
Horse Sickness  G/SPS/GEN/1414  
 Nigeria  Update on the avian influenza situation in Nigeria  G/SPS/GEN/1397  
 Nigeria  64th meeting of the SPS Committee  G/SPS/GEN/1441  
 Switzerland  Disease status update  G/SPS/GEN/1420  
 Thailand  Declaration of Thailand as free from Sternochetus 
mangiferae  G/SPS/GEN/1415  
2016 Colombia  Notifiable diseases in Colombia  G/SPS/GEN/1466  
 Costa Rica  Declaration of the Brunca region of the Republic of 
Costa Rica as an area with a low prevalence of 
bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis  G/SPS/GEN/1507  
 Costa Rica  Statement regarding bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) risk status  G/SPS/GEN/1511  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 44 - 
 
  Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
 Mexico  Declaration of the central -western region of the 
municipality of Coatepec Harinas in the state of 
Mexico as an area free from fruit flies of the 
quarantine -significant genus Anastrepha  G/SPS/GEN/1512  
2017 Botswana  Suspected outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) 
in Ngamiland  G/SPS/GEN/1572  
 Costa Rica  Declaration of Velogenic Newcastle disease free 
status  G/SPS/GEN/1560  
 Paraguay  Declaration of a phytosanitary emergency due to the 
presence of locusts ( Schistocerca cancellata ) in the 
departments of alto Paraguay and Boquerón in the 
western region of Paraguay  G/SPS/GEN/1547  
 
G. Comments/Proposals regarding Monitoring Implementation of the Agreement 
(Articles 12.1 and 12.2) – Specific trade concerns /Use of Ad Hoc Consultations  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 European Union  Public consultation on defining criteria for 
identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of 
the implementation of the European Union's plant 
protection product regulation and biocidal products 
regulation  G/SPS/GEN/1365; 
G/SPS/GEN/1365/Add.1  
 Peru Amendment of European Union Regulation No. 
258/97 concerning novel foods  G/SPS/GEN/1316  
 Peru Comments on the draft amendment to EU 
regulation no 258/97 on novel foods (document 
G/SPS/N/EU/64)  G/SPS/GEN/1329  
 Peru Comments on the proposal for a regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on novel 
foods (document G/SPS/N/EU/64)  G/SPS/GEN/1335 ; 
G/SPS/GEN/1361  
 Russian 
Federation  EU heat treatment requirements on meat  G/SPS/GEN/1328  
2015 European Union  Report on public consultation on defining criteria 
for identifying endocrine disruptors in the context 
of the implementation of the plant protection 
product regulation and the biocidal products 
regulation  G/SPS/GEN/1448  
 India Need fo r measures on detection of pesticide 
residues not registered in the country of import for 
unimpeded flow of trade  G/SPS/W/284  
 Peru Comments on the proposal for a regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on novel 
foods (document G/SPS/N/EU/64)  G/SPS/GEN/1383  
 Peru Comments on the proposal for a regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on novel 
foods (document G/SPS/N/EU/64)  G/SPS/GEN/1422  
 Peru Comments on the proposal for a regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on novel 
foods (document G/SPS/N/EU/64)  G/SPS/GEN/1444  
 Senegal  Market access problems for certain Senegalese 
products  G/SPS/GEN /1451 
2016 European Union  On-going review of maximum residue levels of 
pesticides in the European Union  G/SPS/GEN/1494  
 Peru Regulation (EC) 258/97 and regulation (EU) 
2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on novel foods  G/SPS/GEN/1526  
 Viet Nam  Comments of Viet Nam on the new regulation of 
the United States on mandatory inspection of 
catfish and catfish products  G/SPS/GEN/1485  
2017 European Union  On-going review of maximum residue levels of 
pesticides in the European Union  G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1  
 European Union  Invitation to WTO Members to contribute to the 
evaluation of the EU pesticide legislation  G/SPS/GEN/1590  
 European Union  Information to WTO Members on the latest 
developments on endocrine disruptors  G/SPS/GEN/1594  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 45 - 
 
  Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
 Kenya, Uganda 
and the United 
States  Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels 
(MRLs): possible next steps for consideration by 
the SPS Committee  G/SPS/W/292; 
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.1; and 
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.2  
 Peru Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1164 of 22 June 
2017 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation 
(EC) no 396/2005 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council as regards Maximum Residue Levels 
For Acrinathrin, Metalaxyl And Thiabendazole in or 
on certain products  G/SPS/GEN/1586  
 Peru Commission Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 of 12 
May 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No. 
1881/2006 as regards maximum levels o f 
cadmium in foodstuffs  G/SPS/GEN/1587  
 
H. Review of the Agreement  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 European Union  Fourth Review of the Operation and Implementation 
of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures - The transparency 
obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7 and 
Annex B)  G/SPS/W/274  
 United States  Fourth Review of the Operation and Implementation 
of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures - Workshop on decision 
making and  communication during the risk analysis 
process  G/SPS/W/275  
 Chile, European 
Union, Morocco 
and Norway  Fourth review of the operation and implementation of 
the Agreement on the application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary measures - the transparency 
obligations of the SPS Agreement (Article 7 and 
Annex b)  G/SPS/W/277 ; 
G/SPS/W/278  
 Canada, Kenya  Catalogue of instruments available to WTO Members 
to manage SPS issues  G/SPS/W/279  and 
G/SPS/W/279/Rev.1  
2015 Canada, Kenya  Catalogue of instruments available to WTO Members 
to manage SPS issues  G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2  
 Egypt  Review of the operation and implementation of the 
SPS Agreement  G/SPS/W/282  
 Belize  Review of the operation and implementation of the 
SPS Agreement - Belize's intervention at the 62nd 
WTO SPS Committee meeting  G/SPS/W/286  
2016 Norway  Comments from Norway to the Draft Report of the 
Fourth Review of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2)  G/SPS/W/289  
 Chile, European 
Union  Transparency under the SPS Agreement (Article 7 and 
Annex B) - Follow -up proposals for action  G/SPS/W/290  
2017 United States  The Report of the Fourth Review: Options for 
discussion  G/SPS/W/291  
 
I. SPS-Related Private Standards  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 Belize  SPS related private standards  G/SPS/GEN/1327  
 Belize  Actions regarding SPS -related private standards  G/SPS/GEN/1374  
 China, New 
Zealand  Report of the co -stewards of the private standards 
e-working group on Action 1 (G/SPS/55)  G/SPS/W/276  
 China, New 
Zealand  Second Report of the co -stewards of the private 
standards e -working group  G/SPS/W/281  
2015 Argentina  SPS-related private standards  G/SPS/W/285  
 Belize  Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement - Belize's intervention at the 62nd 
WTO SPS Committee meeting  G/SPS/W/286  
 Belize  Concerns with private and commercial standards - 
Belize's intervention at the 62nd WTO SPS 
Committee meeting  G/SPS/W/287; and 
G/SPS/W/287/Corr.1  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 46 - 
 
  Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
 Belize  Belize's comments on private standards – 63rd 
WTO/SPS Committee meeting - July 2015  G/SPS/W/288  
 China, New 
Zealand  Report of the co -stewards of the private standards 
e-working group  to the March 2015 meeting of the 
SPS Committee on Action 1 (G/SPS/55)  G/SPS/W/283  
 Nigeria  Private standards  G/SPS/GEN/1398  
2017 Belize  Private and Commercial Standards – Formal 
Meeting of the WTO/SPS Committee  G/SPS/GEN/1592  
 
J. Other  
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 Argentina  Phytosanitary re -export authorizations  G/SPS/GEN/1296  
 Armenia  Plant health risk assessment reports  G/SPS/GEN/1310  
 Brazil  Encouragement to eliminate the use of non -
ecofriendly methyl bromide in phytosanitary 
treatments  G/SPS/GEN/1323  
 Burundi  Creation of the National Committee for the 
Coordination and Monitoring of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures  G/SPS/GEN/1306/Rev.1  
 Burundi  Information concerning the Burundian 
Standardization and Quality Control Bureau  (BBN)  G/SPS/GEN/1308/Rev.1  
 Ecuador  Action by Agrocalidad in the framework of 
Ecuador's Single Window  G/SPS/GEN/1356  
 Mexico  Communication from Mexico  G/SPS/GEN/491/Add.1; 
and  
G/SPS/GEN/491/Add.20  
 New Zealand  New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries is 
changing its electronic certification for dairy 
products  G/SPS/GEN/1353  
 Singapore  Changes to licences and certificates issued by the 
agri-food and veterinary authority of Singapore  G/SPS/GEN/1375  
2015 Argentina  Structure of the Argentine National Agriculture and 
Food Quality and Health Service - Current 
situation  G/SPS/GEN/1455  
 Canada  Removal of web listings of Canadian facilities 
exporting wood products  G/SPS/GEN/1437  
 Chile New stamp to be used to certify exports of fishery 
and aquaculture products  G/SPS/GEN/1465  
 Korea, Republic 
of  Introduction to the Korea SPS support website  G/SPS/GEN/1447  
 Mexico  Communication from Mexico  G/SPS/GEN/491/Add.21  
 Mexico  Communication from Mexico concerning the notice 
on the entry into force of Mexican standard NMX -
F-595-SCFI-2015 on halal food, published in the 
Mexican official journal on 7 July 2015  G/SPS/GEN/1464  
 Paraguay  New phytosanitary certificate (Safety Data Sheet) 
format  G/SPS/GEN/1381  
 Peru Results of the 46th session of the Codex 
Committee on food hygiene held in Peru  G/SPS/GEN/1396  
 Peru National Fisheries Health Service (SANIPES)  G/SPS/GEN/1423  
 Peru Actions by the National Fisheries Health Agency 
(SANIPES ) to improve fisheries health  G/SPS/GEN/1445  
 Senegal  Memorandum of understanding between Senegal 
and China on phytosanitary requirements for 
ground -nut exports  G/SPS/GEN/1461; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1461/Corr.1  
 Zambia  Brief update to the October SPS Committee 
meeting  G/SPS/GEN/1450  
2016 Canada  Modernizing Canada's food safety regulatory 
framework  G/SPS/GEN/1524  
 Chile New stamp to be used to certify exports of fishery 
and aquaculture products  G/SPS/GEN/1465/Add.1  
 China  Comments on the United States' regulation on 
mandatory inspection of fish of the order 
siluriformes and products derived from such fish  G/SPS/GEN/1527  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
 Costa Rica  Phytosanitary certificate  G/SPS/GEN/1489; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1489/Add.1  
 European Union  New Animal Health Law of the European Union  G/SPS/GEN/1492  
 Ecuador  New phytosanitary export certificate format  G/SPS/GEN/1467  
 Ecuador  Regulation in force on organic production  G/SPS/GEN/1469  
 Guinea  Upgrading of the "Industrie Assurance Qualité des 
Produits de la Pêche et de l'Aquaculture 
(SIAQPPA)" to the "Office National du Contrôle 
Sanitaire des Produits de la Pêche et de 
l'Aquaculture (ONSPA)"  G/SPS/GEN/1508  
 Israel  Raising awareness on IPPC and OIE dispute 
settlement/avoidance mechanisms  G/SPS /GEN/1502  
 Kenya, Uganda 
and the United 
States  Workshop on Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels 
(MRLs): Possible next steps for consideration by 
the SPS Committee  G/SPS/W/292; 
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.1; and 
G/SPS/W/292/Rev.2  
 Mexico  Introduction of new guides and rules under official 
Mexican standard NOM -001-SAG/FITO -2013, 
establishing the criteria, procedures and 
specifications for the development of variety 
guides and rules for determining the quality of 
seeds for sowing  G/SPS/GEN/1487  
 Mexico  Communication from  Mexico  G/SPS/GEN/491/Add.22  
 Paraguay  New phytosanitary certificate format  G/SPS/GEN/1510  
 Peru Sanitary requirements for the importation into 
Peru of processed foods other than fishery and 
aquaculture products  G/SPS/GEN/1496  
 Peru Guide to improve the  safety of mahi -mahi exports  G/SPS/GEN/1518  
 Senegal  Information concerning the National Committee on 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  G/SPS/GEN/1473  
 Turkey  Update of export certificates for plants and plant 
products  G/SPS/GEN/1509  
2017 Argentina  Export of animal products and live animals - new 
design for security stamps and updated register of 
officials with power of signature for international 
purposes  G/SPS/GEN/1571  
 Brazil  Animal products - Recent measures implemented  G/SPS/GEN/1545; 
G/SPS/GEN /1545/Add.1  
 Chile Chile 2016 - International cooperation on sanitary 
and phytosanitary matters  G/SPS/GEN/1548  
 European Union  New plant health law of the European Union  G/SPS/GEN/1541  
 European Union  New official controls regulation of the European 
Union  G/SPS/GEN/1551  
 Kenya, Uganda 
and the United 
States  Trade in food and agricultural products: Joint 
statement of undersigned Ministers  WT/MIN(17)/52  
 Kyrgyz Republic  Questions from the Kyrgyz Republic to Kazakhstan 
regarding trade -restrictive measures by 
Kazakhstan  G/SPS/W/295  
 Mexico  Communication from Mexico  G/SPS/GEN/491/Add.23  
 Morocco  Revision of the preliminary draft guidelines on 
histamine control in the code of practice for fish 
and fishery products (CAC/RCP 52 -2003)  G/SPS/GEN/1585  
 Turkey  Veterinary health certificate models  G/SPS/GEN/1531  
 
APPENDIX C: LIST OF SPS COMMITTEE DOCUME NTS SUBMITTED BY OBS ERVER  
ORGANIZATION S 2014 -2017 
Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
2014 Codex  46th Session of the Codex Committee on Food 
Hygiene in Lima (Peru)  G/SPS/GEN/1362  
 Codex  Information on Activities  G/SPS/GEN/1368; 
G/SPS/GEN/1403  
 IPPC Report of the IPPC Secretariat  G/SPS/GEN/1344; 
G/SPS/GEN/1370  
 IPPC IPPC Capacity Development Activities  G/SPS/GEN/1345  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
 OIE Report of the World Organisation for Animal Health 
(OIE)  G/SPS/GEN/1343  
 OIE Communication from the OIE  G/SPS/GEN/1364  
 African Union  Information on SPS activities of the African Union  G/SPS/GEN/1341; 
G/SPS/GEN/1363  
 GSO GCC Standardisation Organization  G/SPS/GEN/1360  
 IICA Actions aimed at the implementation of the WTO 
agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures  G/SPS/GEN/1359  
 ITC Information on SPS related recent and forthcoming 
assistance and other activities from the 
International Trade Centre (ITC)  G/SPS/GEN/1369  
 OIRSA  Activities undertaken by the International Regional 
Organization For Plant And Animal Health (OIRSA) 
relating to the WTO Agreement on the Application 
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  G/SPS/ GEN/1367  
 SADC  SADC Report  G/SPS/GEN/1346  
2015 Codex  Information on Activities  G/SPS/GEN/1432; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1443  
 IPPC Report of the International Plant Protection 
Convention Secretariat  G/SPS/GEN/1433; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1459  
 OIE Communication from the OIE G/SPS/GEN/1394;  
G/SPS/GEN/1427; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1440  
 OIE Information paper - OIE standards and recent WTO 
disputes  G/SPS/GEN/1438  
 African Union  Information from the African Union Commission  G/SPS/GEN/1430; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1453  
 FAO Food Safety Risk Analysis  G/SPS/GEN/1405  
 IICA Actions aimed at the implementation of the WTO 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures  G/SPS/GEN/1395; 
G/SPS/GEN/1421; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1452  
 ISO Report of activities  G/SPS/GEN/1416  
 ITC Information on SPS related recent and forthcoming 
assistance and other activities from the 
International Trade Centre (ITC)  G/SPS/GEN/1462  
 OECD  Recent activities by the OECD of interest to the 
SPS Committee  G/SPS/GEN/1399; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1454  
 OIRSA  Activities undertaken by the International Regional 
Organization For Plant And Animal Health (OIRSA) 
relating to the WTO Agreement on the Application 
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  G/SPS/GEN/1400; 
G/SPS/GEN/1429; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1458  
 SADC  SADC rep ort to the World Trade Organisation 
Sanitary And Phytosanitary Committee meeting on 
SPS activities  G/SPS/GEN/1404; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1431  
2016 Codex  Information on Activities  G/SPS/GEN/1481; 
G/SPS/GEN/1501; and  
G/SPS/GEN/1520  
 IPPC Report of the International Plant Protection 
Convention Secretariat  G/SPS/GEN/1488; 
G/SPS/GEN/1504; 
G/SPS/GEN/1529; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1529/Corr.1  
 OIE Communication from the OIE  G/SPS/GEN/1499; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1519  
 ACP Activities of the Europe -Africa Caribbean -Pacific 
Liaison Committee (COLEACP)  G/SPS/GEN/1482  
 ACP ACP-EU TBT programme report to the meeting of 
the WTO SPS Committee: 15 - 17 March 2016  G/SPS/GEN/1483  
 African Union  Information from the African Union Commission  G/SPS/GEN/1525  
 IGAD  Report to the SPS Committee  G/SPS/GEN/1521  
 IICA Actions aimed at the implementation of the WTO 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures  G/SPS/GEN/1500; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1515  
 ISO Report of activities  G/SPS/GEN/1493  
 ITC Information on SPS related recent and forthcoming 
assistance and other activities from the 
International Trade Centre (ITC)  G/SPS/GEN/1484; 
G/SPS/GEN/1505; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1530  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Year Member  Title/Subject  Symbol  
 OECD  Recent activities by the OECD of interest to the 
SPS Committee  G/SPS/GEN/1528  
 OIRSA  Activities undertaken by the International Regional 
Organization For Plant And Animal Health (OIRSA) 
relating to the WTO Agreement on the Application 
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  G/SPS/GEN/1495; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1523  
 SADC  SADC report to the World  Trade Organisation 
Sanitary And Phytosanitary Committee meeting on 
SPS activities  G/SPS/GEN/1474/Corr.1; 
G/SPS/GEN/1503; and  
G/SPS/GEN/1517  
2017 Codex  Information on Activities  G/SPS/GEN/1540; 
G/SPS/GEN/1559; 
G/SPS/GEN/1577; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1577/Add.1  
 IPPC Update from the International Plant Protection 
Convention Secretariat (as of October 2016)  G/SPS/GEN/1533; 
G/SPS/GEN/1565; and  
G/SPS/GEN/1579  
 OIE Communication from the OIE  G/SPS/GEN/1543  
 OIE OIE standards and recent WTO disputes  G/SPS/GEN/1553; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1583  
 African Union  Information on SPS Activities of the African Union  G/SPS/GEN/1563; 
G/SPS/GEN/1566  
 CAHFSA  Report on SPS Activities  G/SPS/GEN/1537; 
G/SPS/GEN/1561; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1575  
 ECOWAS  Overview of ECOWAS implemented sanitary and 
phytosanitary activities  G/SPS/GEN/1570; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1574  
 FAO/WHO 
Codex Trust 
Fund Why invest in the FAO/WHO CODEX Trust Fund?  G/SPS/GEN/1534  
 IGAD  Report to the SPS Committee  G/SPS/GEN/1532; 
G/SPS/GEN/1556; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1576  
 IICA Actions aimed at the implementation of the WTO 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures  G/SPS/GEN/1557; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1580  
 ISO Report of activities  G/SPS/GEN/1555  
 ITC Information on SPS related activities of the 
International Trade Centre (ITC) (November 2016 
– March 2017)  G/SPS/GEN/1546  
 OECD  Recent activities by the OECD of interest to the 
SPS Committee  G/SPS/GEN/1535; 
G/SPS/GEN/1562; and  
G/SPS/GEN/1588  
 OECD  OECD Work on Pesticides  G/SPS/GEN/1589  
 OIRSA  Activities undertaken by the International Regional 
Organization For Plant And Animal Health (OIRSA) 
relating to the WTO Agreement on the Application 
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  G/SPS/GEN/1536; 
G/SPS/GEN/1554; and 
G/SPS/GEN/1578  
 
  
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 50 - APPENDIX D - WTO DISPUTES INVOKIN G THE SPS AGREEMENT  
Since 1 January 1995, violations of the SPS Agreement have been alleged in the following disputes. Those which have be en referred to a panel are highlighted 
in italics.  
 
Please note that in the WTO, the European Union was officially called the European Communities until 30 November 2009. In thi s table, reference is made to 
"the European Communities" or "the EC" regarding dispute developments that took place before this date.  
 
 STC No.  DS Number  Parties and nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Panel/Appellate Body proceedings  
1 STC 2* WT/DS3  US complaint against Korea's inspection 
procedures for fresh fruits  Consultations requested on 
6/04/1995 (WT/DS3/1).  Pending  
2 STC 1  WT/DS5  US complaint against Korea's shelf -life requirements 
for frozen processed meats and other products  Consultations requested on 
3/05/1995 (WT/DS5/1).  Mutually agreed solution notified on 20/07/1995 
(WT/DS5/5).  
3 STC 8  WT/DS18  Canada's complaint against Australia's import 
restrictions on fresh, chilled or frozen salmon  
Australia - Salmon  Consultations requested on 
5/10/1995 (WT/DS18/1).  Panel established on 10/04/1997.  
 
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS18/AB/R) and Panel 
report ( WT/DS18/R) adopted on 6/11/1998.  
 
Suspension of concessions authorized on 
24/12/1998; Request for Arbitration 3/08/1999 
(WT/DS18/13).  
 
Mutually agreed solution notified on 18/05/2000 
(WT/DS18/RW).  
4 STC 1  WT/DS20  Canada's complaint against Korea's restrictions on 
treatment methods for bottled water  Consultations requested on 
8/11/1995 (WT/DS20/1).  Mutually agreed solution notified on 24/04/1996 
(WT/DS20/6).  
5 STC 8  WT/DS21  US complaint against Australia's import restrictions on 
fresh, chilled or frozen salmon  
Australia - Salmonids  Consultations requested on 
17/11/1995 (WT/DS21/1).  Panel established on 16/06/1999.  
 
Mutually agreed solution notified on 27/10/2000 
(WT/DS21/10).  
6 N/A WT/DS26  US complaint against EC's prohibition of meat from 
animals treated with growth -promoting hormones  
EC – Hormones (US)  Consultations requested on 
26/01/1996 (WT/DS26/1).  Panel established on 20/05/1996.  
 
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS26/AB/R) and Panel 
report ( WT/DS26/R/USA) adopt ed on 
13/02/1998.  
 
Suspension of concessions authorized on 
26/07/1999; Request for Arbitration on 
22/12/2008 ( WT/DS26/ARB).  
 
Memorandum of Understanding notified on 
25/09/2009 (WT/DS26/28).   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 51 -  STC No.  DS Number  Parties and nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Panel/Appellate Body proceedings  
7 STC 2* WT/DS41  US complaint against Korea's inspection procedures 
for fresh fruits  Consultations requested on 
24/05/1996 (WT/DS41/1).  Pending  
8 N/A WT/DS48  Canada's complaint against EC prohibition of meat 
from animals treated with growth -promoting 
hormones  
EC – Hormones (Canada)  Consultations requested on 
28/06/1996 (WT/DS48/1).  Panel established on 16/10/1996.  
 
Appellate Body report (WT/DS48/AB/R) and Panel 
report (WT/DS48/R/CAN ) adopted on 
13/02/1998.  
 
Suspension of concessions authorized on 
26/07/1999; Request for Arbitration on 
22/12/2008 (WT/DS48/ARB).  
 
Memorandum of Understanding notified on 
17/03/2011 (WT/DS48/26).  
9 STC 12  WT/DS76  US complaint against Japan's "varietal testing" 
requirement for fresh fruits  
Japan – Agricultural Products II  Consultations requested on 
7/04/1997 (WT/DS76/1).  Panel established on 18/11/1997.  
 
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS76/AB/R) and Panel 
report  (WT/DS76/R) adopted  on 19/03/1999.  
 
Mutually satisfactory solution notified on 
23/08/2001 (WT/DS76/12).  
10 N/A WT/DS96  EC complaint against India's quantitative restrictions  
on agricultural and other products  Consultations requested on 
18/07/1997 (WT/DS96/1).  Mutually agreed solution notified on 7/04/1998 
(WT/DS96/8).  
11 N/A WT/DS100  EC complaint against US restrictions on poultry 
imports  Consultations requested on 
18/08/1997 (WT/DS100/1).  Pending  
12 STC 4* WT/DS133  Switzerland's complaint against Slovakia's BSE -related 
restrictions on cattle and meat  Consultations requested on 
7/05/1998 (WT/DS133/1).  Pending  
13 N/A WT/DS134  India's complaint against EC restrictions on rice 
imports  Consultations requested on 
27/05/1998 (WT/DS134/1).  Pending  
14 N/A WT/DS135  Canadian complaint against EC (French) measures 
affecting asbestos  
EC - Asbestos  Consultations requested on 
28/05/1998 (WT/DS135/1).  Panel established  on 25/11/1998.  
 
Appellate Body report (WT/DS/135/AB/R) and 
Panel report (WT/DS/135/R) adopted on 
5/04/2001. No findings under the SPS 
Agreement.  
15 N/A WT/DS137  Canada's complaint against EC restrictions due to pine 
wood nematodes  Consultations requested  on 
17/06/1998 (WT/DS137/1).  Pending  
16 N/A WT/DS144  Canada's complaint against US state restrictions on 
movement of Canadian trucks carrying live animals 
and grains  Consultations requested on 
25/09/1998 (WT/DS144/1).  Pending  
17 N/A WT/DS203  US complaint  against Mexico's measures affecting 
trade in live swine  Consultations requested on 
10/07/2000 (WT/DS203/1).  Pending   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 52 -  STC No.  DS Number  Parties and nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Panel/Appellate Body proceedings  
18 STC 77  WT/DS205  Thailand's complaint against Egypt's GMO -related 
prohibition on imports of canned tuna with soybean oil  Consultations request on 
22/09/2000 (WT/DS205/1).  Pending  
19 STC 92  WT/DS237  Ecuador's complaint against Turkey's import 
requirements for fresh fruit, especially bananas  
Turkey – Fresh Fruit Import Procedures  Consultations requested on 
31/08/2001 (WT/DS237/1).  Panel established on 29/07/2002; composition 
suspended on the same day.  
 
Mutually agreed solution notified on 22/11/2002 
(WT/DS237/4).  
20 STC 100  WT/DS245  US complaint against Japan's restrictions on apples 
due to fire blight  
Japan - Apples  Consultations requested on 
1/03/2002 (WT/DS245/1).  Panel established on 3/06/2002.  
 
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS245/AB/R) and 
Panel report ( WT/DS245/R) adopted on 
10/12/2003.  
 
Mutually agreed solution notified on 30/08/2005  
(WT/DS245/RW).  
21 STC 76* WT/DS256  Hungary's complaint against Turkey's restrictions on 
imports of pet food (BSE)  Consultations requested on 
3/05/2002 (WT/DS256/1).  Pending  
22 STC 74  WT/DS270  Philippine complaint against Australia's restrictions on 
fresh fruits and vegetables, including bananas  
Australia - Fresh Fruit and Vegetables  Consultations requested on 
18/10/2002 (WT/DS270/1).  Panel established on 29/08/2003.  
23  STC 74  WT/DS271  Philippine complaint against Australia's restrictions on 
pineapple  Consultations requested on 
18/10/2002 (WT/DS271/1).  Pending  
24 N/A WT/DS279  EC complaint against India's export and import policy  Consultations requested on 
23/12/2002 (WT/DS279/1).  Pending  
25 STC 164  WT/DS284  Nicaragua's complaint against Mexico's phytosanitary 
restrictions on black beans  Consultations requested on 
17/03/2003 (WT/DS284/1).  Mutually agreed solution notified on 8/03/2004 
(WT/DS284/4 – withdrawal of request for 
consultations).  
26 STC 139  WT/DS287  EC complaint against Australian quarantine regime  
Australia – Quarantine Regime  Consultations requested on 
3/04/2003 (WT/DS287/1).  Panel established on 7/11/2003.  
 
Mutually agreed solution notified on 9/03/2007 
(WT/DS287/8).  
27 STC 106/110  WT/DS291  US complaint against EC on GMO approvals  
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products  Consultations requested on 
13/05/2003 (WT/DS291/1).  Single panel established for disputes DS291, 
DS292 and DS293 on 29/08/2003.  
 
Panel report (WT/DS291/R) was adopted on 
21/11/2006.  
 
Suspension of concessions authorized on 
15/02/2008; Arbitration requested on 7/02/2008 
(WT/DS291/34).   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 53 -  STC No.  DS Number  Parties and nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Panel/Appellate Body proceedings  
28 STC 106/110  WT/DS292  Canada's complaint against EC on GMO approvals  
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products  Consultations requested on 
13/05/2003 (WT/DS292/1).  Single Panel established to examine disputes 
DS291, DS292 and DS293, on 29/08/2003.  
 
Panel report (WT/DS292/R) adopted on 
21/11/2006.  
 
Mutually agreed solution notified on 15/07/2009 
(WT/DS292/40).  
29 STC 106/110  WT/DS293  Argentina's complaint against EC on GMO approvals  
EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products  Consultations requested on 
14/05/2003 (WT/DS293/1).  Single Panel established to examine disputes 
DS291, DS292 and DS293, on 29/08/2003.  
 
Panel report (WT/DS293/R) adopted on 
21/11/2006.  
 
Mutually agreed solution notified on 19/03/2010 
(WT/DS293/41).  
30 STC 166  WT/DS297  Hungary's complaint against Croatia's restrictions on 
live animals and meat products (TSEs).  Consultations requested on 
9/07/2003 (WT/DS297/1).  Mutually agreed solution notified on 30/01/2009 
(WT/DS297/2).  
31 N/A WT/DS320** EC complaint against the US continued suspension of 
obligations in the EC -Hormones dispute  
US – Continued Suspension of Obligations  Consultations requested on 
8/11/2004 (WT/DS320/1).  Panel established on 17/02/2005.  
 
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS320/AB/R) and 
Panel report (WT/DS320/R) adopted on 
14/11/2008, no further action was required.  (See 
also Memorandum of Understanding, DS26).  
32 N/A WT/DS321** EC complaint against Canada's continued suspension 
of obligations in the EC -Hormones Dispute  
Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations  Consultations requested on 
8/11/2004 (WT/DS321/1).  Panel established on 17/02/2005.  
 
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS321/AB/R) and 
Panel report ( WT/DS321/R) adopted on 
14/11/2008, no further action was requi red. (See 
also Memorandum of Understanding, DS48).  
33 STC 217  WT/DS367  New Zealand's complaint against Australia's 
restrictions on apples  
Australia - Apples  Consultations requested on 
31/08/2007 (WT/DS367/1).  Panel established on 21/01/2008.  
 
Appellate Body report ( WT/DS367/AB/R ) and 
Panel report ( WT/DS367/R ) adopted on 
17/12/2010.  
 
Reasonable period of time for implementation 
expired on 17/08/2011. Implementation notified 
by respondent on 02/09/2011.  
 
Agreed procedures (Sequencing agreement) 
notified on  13/09/2011 (WT/DS367/21).   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 54 -  STC No.  DS Number  Parties and nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Panel/Appellate Body proceedings  
34 STC 91 of 
TBT WT/DS384  Canada's complaint against the US country of origin 
labelling requirements  
United States – Certain Country of Origin 
Labelling (COOL) Requirements  Consultations requested on 
1/12/2008 (WT/DS384/1).  Single panel established with that of Mexico 
(DS386) on 19/11/2009.  
 
Appellate Body report (WT/DS384/AB/R) and 
Panel report (WT/DS384/R) adopted on 
23/07/2012. No findings under the SPS 
Agreement.  
 
Art. 21.5 Panel Report circulated on 20  October 
2014.  
35 STC 91 of 
TBT WT/DS386  Mexico's complaint against the US country of origin 
labelling requirements  
United States – Certain Country of Origin 
Labelling (COOL) Requirements  Consultations requested on 
17/12/2008 (WT/DS386/1).  Single panel established with that of Canada 
(DS384) on 19/11/2009.  
 
Appellate Body report (WT/DS386/AB/R) and 
Panel report (WT/DS386/R) adopted on 
23/07/2012. No findings under the SPS 
Agreement.  
36 STC 242  WT/DS389  US complaint against EC measures affecting poultry 
meat and poultry meat products  
EC - Poultry  Consultations requested on 
16/01/2009 (WT/DS389/1).  Panel established on 19/11/2009; composition 
pending.  
37 STC 247  WT/DS391  Canada's complaint against Korea's measures affecting 
the importation of bovine meat and meat products  
Korea – Bovine Products  Consultations requested on 
9/04/2009 (WT/DS391/1).  Panel established on 31/08/2009: Panel 
proceedings suspended on 4/07/2011.  
 
Mutually agreed solution notified on 19/06/2012 
(WT/DS391/9 ). 
 
Panel report (WT/DS391/R) circulated to Members 
on 3/07/2012, reporting on the solution reached 
by parties.  
38 STC 257  WT/DS392  China's complaint against US measures affecting 
imports of poultry  
US — Poultry  Consultations requested on 
17/04/2009 (WT/DS392/1).  Panel established on 31/07/2009.  
 
Panel report (WT/DS392/R) adopted on 
25/10/2010, no further action required . 
39 STC 257 in 
TBT WT/DS406  Indonesia's complaint about US ban on clove 
cigarettes  
US - Measures Affecting the Production and Sale 
of Clove Cigarettes  Consultations requested on 
7/04/2010 (WT/DS406/1).  Panel established on 20/07/2010.  
 
Appellate Body report (WT/DS406/AB/R) and 
Panel report (WT/DS406/R) adopted on 
24/04/2012. No findings under the SPS 
Agreement.   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 55 -  STC No.  DS Number  Parties and nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Panel/Appellate Body proceedings  
40 STC 185  WT/DS430  US complaint against India's import restrictions on 
agricultural products  
India — Agricultural Products  Consultations requested on 
6/03/2012 (WT/DS430/1).  Panel established on 25/06/2012.  
 
Appellate Body report (WT/DS430/AB/R) and 
Panel report (WT/DS430/R an d Add.1) adopted on 
19/06/2015.  
Article 21.5 consultations requested on 22 May 
2017 (WT/DS475/20).  
41 STC 318  WT/DS447  Argentina's complaint against US restrictions on beef 
and other meat products  
US - Animals  Consultations requested on 
30/08/2012 (WT/DS447/1 
and WT/DS447/1/Corr.1).  Panel established on 28/01/2013.  
 
Panel composed on 08/08/2013; Panel report 
(WT/DS447/R and Add.1) adopted on 
31/08/2015.  
42 STC 336  WT/DS448  Argentina's complaint against US measures affecting 
the importation of fresh  lemons  
United States — Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Fresh Lemons  Consultations requested on 
3/09/2012 (WT/DS448/1 
and WT/DS448/1/Corr.1).  Pending  
43 STC 369  WT/DS475  EU's complaint against Russian measures affecting the 
importation of live pigs pork, pork products and  
certain other commodities because of African Swine 
Fever (ASF)  
Russia — Pigs (EU)  Consultations requested on 
8 April 2013 (WT/DS475/1).  Panel established on 22/07/2014.  
 
Panel composed on 23/10/2014. Appellate Body 
report (WT/DS47 5/AB/R and Add.1) and Panel 
report (WT/DS475/R and Add.1) adopted on 
21/03/2017.  
Matter referred to 22.6 arbitration on 3 January 
2017.  
Article 21.5 consultations requested on 7 
February 2018 (WT/DS475/20).  
44 STC 286  WT/DS484  Brazil's complaint against certain Indonesian measures 
on the importation of meat from fowls of the species 
Gallus domesticus and products from fowls of the 
species Gallus domesticus  
Indonesia —Chicken  Consultations requested on 
16/10/2014 
(WT/DS/484/1).  Panel established on 03/12/2 015.  
 
Panel composed on 03/03/2016; Panel report 
(WT/DS484/R) adopted on 22 November 2017.  
45 STC 359  WT/DS495  Japan's complaint against Korea's measures adopted 
subsequent to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi 
nuclear power plant in March 2011 regarding: (a) 
import bans on certain food products; (b) additional 
testing and certification requirements regarding the 
presence of certain radionuclides; and (c) a number of 
alleged omissions concerning transparency obligations 
under the SPS  Agreement.  
Korea – Radionuclides  Consultations requested on 
21/05/2015 
(WT/DS/495/1).  Panel established on 28/09/2015.  
Panel composed on 8/02/2016. Panel Report 
circulated on 22/02/2018.  
Panel report under appeal.   
  G/SPS/GEN/1612  
 
- 56 -  STC No.  DS Number  Parties and nature of complaint  Request for 
consultations  Panel/Appellate Body proceedings  
46 STC 305  WT/DS506  Brazil's complaint regarding certain measures imposed 
by Indonesia on the importation of meat from cattle of 
the species Bos taurus . 
Indonesia — Measures Concerning the 
Importation of Bovine Meat  Consultations requested on 
04/04/2016 
(WT/DS/506/1).  Pending  
47 STC 394  WT/DS524  Mexico's complaint against Costa Rica's measures that 
restrict or prohibit the importation of fresh avocados 
for consumption from Mexico  
Costa Rica - Measures Concerning the 
Importation of Fresh Avocados from Mexico  Consultations requested on 
08/03/2017 
(WT/DS/524/1).  Pending  
48 N/A WT/DS525  Russian Federation's complaint with respect to alleged 
restrictions, prohibitions, requirements and procedures 
adopted and maintained by Ukraine in respect of trade 
in goods and services as well as transit.  
Ukraine — Measures relating to Trade in Goods 
and Services  Consultations requested on 
19/05/2017 
(WT/DS/525/1).  Pending  
49 N/A WT/DS532  Ukraine's complaint with respect to Russian 
Federation's measures concerning trade of juice 
products, beer, beer -based beverages and other 
alcoholic beverages, confectionary products, wall 
paper and similar wall coverings from Ukraine.  
Russia — Measures Concerning the Importation 
and Transit of Certain Ukrainian Products  Consultations requested on 
13/10/2017 
(WT/DS/532/1).  Pending  
* Whilst the DSU consultations on this case are pending, the Committee was notified that the specific trade concern itself had been resolved.  
** DS320, 321: Neither of these two requests for consultations claimed violation of the SPS Agreement, however, one of the issue s of concern rega rded the EC 
implementation of the rulings in WT/DS26 and WT/DS48; hence, the SPS Agreement was relevant to these disputes.  
 
__________