G/SPS/GEN/1655  
 
12 October 2018  
(18-6351) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
FIFTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE AGRE EMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION O F SANITARY AND PHYTO SANITARY MEASURES  
COMPILATION OF COMME NTS SUBMITTED  BY MEMBERS ON PAPER S/PROPOSALS  
ON THE ISSUES FOR CO NSIDERATION  
Note by the Secretariat1 
Members have submitted the following comments on the papers/proposals on the issues for 
consideration during the F ifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of th e Agreement on the 
Application of Sani tary and Phytosanitary Measures:  
1  Joint Proposal  from  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Dominican Republic, Japan,  Kenya, Madagascar, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, 
Uganda, the Uni ted States, and Uruguay2 (G/SPS/W/292/ Rev.4) - Pesticide MRLs  
1.1  Comments from the United States  
1.1.  The United States notes that the recommendation related to strengthening notification 
practices contained in the joint proposal on MRLs does not contain any requirements that would 
impose an additional burden on Members, as one Member asserted. Indeed, the  recommendation 
contained in paragraph 2.2 of G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4 is fully consistent with sections 2.1 and 2.5 of 
the Committee's Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the 
SPS Agreement,  G/SPS/7/Rev.4.  
1.2.  We appreciate the sta tements by Senegal, Japan and Guatemala on the importance of taking 
forward the recommendations in the paper and look forward to working together to address the 
trade concerns addressed in the joint proposal.  
2  Proposal  from Australia  (G/SPS/W/ 299) - Equival ence  
2.1  Comments from the United States  
2.1.  We thank Australia for its submission. The United States believes equivalence arrangements 
can be useful tools to facilitate trade. We look forward to the thematic sessions on equivalence and 
invite discussion on a numb er of points in Australia 's paper.  
2.2.  First, we invite clarification from Australia on the goal of the proposal to enable feedback that 
is more specific. Is the chief goal of the proposal to improve impleme ntation of Article 4 of the 
SPS Agreement, or is the aim to broaden international acceptance of the systems approaches 
concept?  
                                                
1 This document  has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and  is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 Ministers of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, 
Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uganda, the United States and Uruguay signed a joint 
statement supporting the recommendations contained in this submission. See WT/MIN(17)/52.  G/SPS/GEN/1655  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.  Second , we are interested in understanding the basis of the Australia 's view that " use of the 
guidance [on equivalence] developed by the International Standard Setting Bodies (ISSBs) has been 
limited… ". 
▪ Is this based on a review of Members ' notifications (G/SPS/7/Rev.4, page 31) and/or on 
Members ' reports to the Committee under the agenda item on equivalence?  
▪ What are Members ' experiences in the equivalence arrangements notific ation process?  
▪ Do Members ' notification and reporting practices on equivalence accurately convey the 
extent of Members activities in implementing Article 4?  
2.4.  In this regard, we note that ISPM 24 states, "…while not formalized under the title of 
"equivalence ", there is widespread application of equivalence in current phytosanitary practices ". 
ISPM 24 further states:  
"To manage a specified pest risk and achieve a contracting party 's appropriate 
level of protection , equivalence may be applied to:  
- an individual measure,  
- a combination of measures, or  
- integrated measures in a systems approach. " 
2.5.  We note that all options listed, including systems approaches, are applications of equivalence 
to a specified pest risk.  With respect to pest -risks, we are interested in kno wing:  
▪ Do Members notify phytosanitary practices to manage a specified pest risk and result in new 
market access that are not formalized under the title of equivalence?  If so, what noti fication 
format do Members use?  
▪ Has any Member applied equivalence to in tegrated measures in a systems approach to 
address a suite of possible pest risks or to a country 's entire plant health system?  
▪ Do Members consider the practice of making regulatory determinations to allow market 
access for products based on pest risk asse ssments a form of equivalence?  
2.6.  We note that Chapter 5.3 of the OIE Terrestrial Code for Animal Health discusses both 
equivalence and regionalization (i.e., zo ning and compartmentalization).  
▪ What are Members ' experiences with respect to recognition of pest - or disease -free areas to 
allow market access in relation to equivalence determinations?  
▪ To what extent have Members engaged in equivalence determinations for animal diseases 
over and beyond a regionalization determination for a specified animal disease?  
▪ What benefits do Members see from entering into equivalence arrangements related to 
animal health that regionalization recognitions do not provide?  
2.7.  Third , we invite Austr alia to elaborate its view that " …additional specific guidance from the 
SPS Committee m ay result in increased numbers of systems approaches being recognized as 
equivalent… ". By our reading, the term " systems approaches " has been used in different ways by 
Codex, IPPC and OIE, and has not even been used consistently from doc ument to document b y each 
ISSB.  
2.8.  We invite Members to consider inviting the ISSBs to report to the SPS Committee on th eir 
understandings of the term " systems approaches " in the context of the subjects that each ISSB 
covers.  
2.9.  Further, we note that Codex members are working to c larify and unify the m eaning of "systems 
approaches"  in Codex documents. The Proposed Draft Guidance on  the Use of Systems Equivalence  
currently under development has a significant number of concepts that overlap and duplicate existing 
Codex work. This dup lication and overlap is especially prominent with respect to the Guidelines on 
the Judgment of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification 
Systems  (CAC/GL 53 -2003) and the Guideline for the Development of Equivalence Agreements 
Regarding Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems  (CAC/GL 34 -1999).  G/SPS/GEN/1655  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.10.   In view of the variability and uncertainty in the meaning of "systems approaches " across the 
ISSBs, as well as the current discussions in Codex to clarify and unify its meaning across proposed 
and existing documents, we wonder how the SPS Committee could usefully contribute additional 
guidance to increase the use of systems approaches.  Further, we recall the recognition of Members ' 
resource and time constraints in the Committee 's Decision on the Implementation on Equivalence  
(G/SPS/19/Rev.2), and invite Members ' views and experiences on the circumstances under which 
systems approaches, such as recognition of equivalence of national food control systems, have been 
successfully negotiated and resulted in an expansion of trade opportunities.  
3  Proposal  from  Belize (G/SPS/W/306)  – Third P arty Assurance Systems /Development 
of Guidelines for Art icle 13  
3.1  Comments from the United States  
3.1.  We appreciate the clarity of the submission by Belize on a key point: Belize makes clear that 
its proposal to develop guidelines for the implementation of Ar ticle 13 seeks to apply the 
SPS Agreement to private person s and businesses, including "retailers [and] buyers ". As an initial 
matter, the United States does not, and indeed cannot, support the development of such guidelines.  
4  Proposal from  Brazil (G/SPS/W/ 300) – Notif ication Procedures/Transparency  
4.1  Comments from t he United States  
4.1.  The United States shares Brazil 's concern that some measures notified to the TBT Committee 
are SPS measures and should be notified to the SPS Committee.  We would welcome work under the 
Fifth Review to provide greater clarity on current notification practices and to promote a shared 
understanding among Members on the need to notify measures to the appropriate committee 
consistent with the definitions contained in the SPS Agreement.  We note that whether a measure is 
an SPS measure does not  hinge in any way on whether it is notified to the SPS Committee, another 
WTO c ommittee, or no WTO committee at all.  
4.2.  We welcome a discussion of these issues in the transparency workshop to be held on the 
margins of the SPS Committee in July 2019.  
5  Proposal  from Brazil  (G/SPS/W/307)  – Regionalization  
5.1  Comments from the United States  
5.1.  The United States shares the interest of the European Union and Brazil to discuss potential 
Committee actions that could build on the thematic sessions on regionalization, in parti cular to focus 
on identifying obstacles to the practical implementation of Article 6. We note the proposals contained 
in our submission, G/SPS/W/303, and look forward to working with Brazil, the European Union and 
other interested delegations to identify s pecific elements to take forward that can further the 
practical implementation of Article  6. 
6  Proposal  from Brazil  (G/SPS/W/308) – ALOP, Risk Assessment and Science  
6.1  Comments from the United States  
6.1.  The United States thanks Brazil for its submission. We stron gly support a discussion on the 
importance of scientific justification in the Fifth Review. We invite Brazil to share its views on its 
proposal in paragraph 2.1 . (a) that the Committee focus on the scientific justification as the main 
criteria for risk ass essment alone. We have concerns that a recognition by the Committee on the 
relation of scientific justification to risk assessment alone could be misinterpreted or misused to 
detract from the role of scientific justification across provisions throughout th e SPS Agreement.  
6.2.  We invite Brazil to elaborate on its rationale for its proposal to request that the ISSBs work on 
the procedural steps for the adoption and application of Article 5.7. In light of the fact that  Members 
apply provisional measures in the absence of available scientific evidence, we do not understand the 
basis on which the elaboration of procedural steps would benefit from the scientific expertise of the 
ISSBs. As a practical matter, such procedura l steps for each Member would reflect its own G/SPS/GEN/1655  
 
- 4 - 
 
  institutional and legal processes for risk management, which we believe is an area where ISSB 
expertise would not be relevant or appropriate. However, we share Brazil 's concern regarding the 
potential for abuse  of Article 5.7 and invite further discussion of Members ' experiences in 
implementing the obligation to seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more 
objective assessment of risk within a reasonable period of time.  
6.3.  The United States suppor ts the concept of greater transparency in the application of Article 
5.7. However, we are unsure whether additional information in the notification of provisional 
measures taken would be an effective means of achieving the transparency sought. We are 
interested in other Members ' views.  
7  Proposal from  the European Union  (G/SPS/W/298)  - Regionalization  
7.1  Comments from the United States  
7.1.  The United States shares the interest of the European Union and Brazil to discuss potential 
Committee actions that could build on the thematic sessions on regionalization, in particular to focus 
on identifying obstacles to the practical implementation of A rticle 6.  We note the proposals contained 
in our submission, G/SPS/W/303, and look forward to working with Brazil, the European Union and 
other interested delegations to identify specific elements to take forward that can further the 
practical implementati on of Article  6. 
8  Proposal from South Africa  (G/SPS/W/304)  – Role of 3 Sisters in Addressing STCs  
8.1  Comments from the United States  
8.1.  The United States welcomes a renewed discussion under the Fifth Review of the role of the 
ISSBs in the Committee.  We recall tha t Members extensively discussed the role of the ISSBs with 
respect to Committee discussion of specific trade concerns (STCs) in 2012.  We would welcome the 
opportunity for Members to  reacquaint themselves with these earlier exchanges in the context of 
South  Africa 's current proposal.  In this regard, we note the 2012 Secretariat 's Note on Observers in 
the SPS Committee - Their Role and Outstanding Requests  (G/SPS/GEN/1157) , as well as the 2012 
Proposal by Chile and the United States,  International Standard Setting Bodies Involvement in the 
WTO SPS Committee in Specific Trade Concerns (STCs)  (G/SPS/W/267).  We invite Members to 
review the Committee 's discussions in 2012 on this issue (perhaps the Secretariat could assist by 
providing an oral summary) and asses s the most appropriate ways in which Members and the ISSBs 
can work to gether to resolve STCs.  
 
__________